From xod@sixgirls.org Sun Apr 01 17:13:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@shiva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 00:13:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 89339 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 00:12:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 00:12:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO shiva.sixgirls.org) (206.252.141.232) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 01:14:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by shiva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3+3.4W/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f320DiS02964 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 20:13:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 20:13:44 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Random lojban questions/annoyances. In-Reply-To: <9a7vre+rau9@eGroups.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Value Yourself On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Adam Raizen wrote: > 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". mi'o pevyjinru le ka gletu .enai le nu gletu ----- "The trees are green, since green is good for the eyes". I agreed with him, and added, that God had created cattle, since beef soups strengthen man; that he created the donkey, so that it might give man something with which to compare himself; and he had created man, to eat beef soup and not be a donkey.