Subject: Re: Random lojban questions/annoyances.

From: "Adam Raizen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 19:34:06 -0000

la xorxes cusku die

> I reject some cmavo mainly on practical grounds. For
> example, some people like to use za'i/pu'u/zu'o/mu'e instead of
> the simple nu that covers them all. But in order for me to
understand
> what they are saying I have to first recognize and then mentally
> translate that word into nu, and I usually have no idea what
additional
> information the word is adding. I have not yet found an example
> where I can say that it justifies the whole hassle of having to
learn
> four more words.

I'm not sure I can think of an example that justifies the distinction
between "ka" and "nu", either. Does "mi mutce le nu xenru" or "le ka
sipna cu nibli le ka nalsanji" mean anything so different than the
version with the other abstractor? There may be examples where there 
is a real distinction, but they seem pretty rare. And yet we all 
constantly make a distinction between "ka" and "nu".

co'o mi'e adam