From robin@BILKENT.EDU.TR Wed May 30 05:21:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: robin@bilkent.edu.tr X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 30 May 2001 12:21:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 20068 invoked from network); 30 May 2001 12:21:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 May 2001 12:21:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr) (139.179.30.24) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 May 2001 12:21:05 -0000 Received: from neo.fen.bilkent.edu.tr (neo.fen.bilkent.edu.tr [139.179.97.69]) by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix) with SMTP id A4B091278D for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:27:55 +0300 (EEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Organization: Bilkent University To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Enemy [Was: [lojban] Request for grammar clarifications Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:22:25 +0300 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01053015222506.06088@neo.fen.bilkent.edu.tr> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Robin Turner On Wednesday 30 May 2001 05:34, Jorge Llambias wrote: > la rab spir di'e cusku > > >So {du} is only to be used for mekso now? > > Goodness no! Mekso should _never_ be used. .u'iro'e > > According to my style-book, {du} is bad style and should be avoided > within reason, sets are very bad style and should be used only under > the most exacting of circumstances, and MEX are atrocious style and > should never be used. .ia {du} is not bad style per se, but is generally to be avoided because of the danger of malglico, e.g. {mi du lo ctuca} or worse. I don't see any harm, however, in using {du} to emphasise that the expressions on either side have the same referent. To use Frege's celebrated example, la cernytarcin. du la vancytarcin. (or should that be {la'e}?). robin.tr