From ragnarok@pobox.com Fri Aug 03 10:53:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 17:53:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 9326 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 17:51:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 17:51:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.246) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 17:51:30 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.34] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A4C11AD40196; Fri, 03 Aug 2001 13:52:01 -0400 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] commands Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:51:30 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010803125957.00b77e90@pop.cais.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" >"lets go" has a different solution, either using ".e'u" for suggestion with >a bridi, or if you want an assertive sense "doi mi'o ko cliva Doesn't allowing .e'u or .e'o to make a command contradict actual usage, which is supposed to decide everything? The precedent is that an .e'o or .e'u still needs a ko to be a command - {.e'osai ko sarji la lojban.} for example. BTW, what (if anything) does "doi mi ko klama" mean?