Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Random lojban questions/annoyances.

From: Value Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 20:13:44 -0400 (EDT)

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.