From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Aug 03 11:55:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 18:55:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 16967 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 18:55:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 18:55:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 18:55:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f73It2801110 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:55:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:55:01 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] commands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Craig wrote: > >"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. .e'o ko is redundant. ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!