From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 06 15:18:49 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 6 Aug 2001 22:18:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 38291 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2001 22:17:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Aug 2001 22:17:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Aug 2001 22:17:31 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.255.41.128]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010806221729.WZGA6330.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:17:29 +0100
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: tu'o (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:16:32 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMCEIEEIAA.a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
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)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <9kjl4g+bkb4@eGroups.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>

Jorge:
> la lojbab cusku di'e
> 
> > Since it is elliptical, it has unspecified value which is to be 
> inferred 
> > from context if important. 
> [...] 
> > For the same reason, we do not presume that zo'e stands for "noda".
> 
> I think the counterpart of {zo'e} should be {no'o}, not {tu'o}.
> {tu'o} is the counterpart of {zi'o}. At least that's what "used 
> in unary operations" suggests to me.

Pierre:
> {no'o} seems to correspond to {zu'i}, not {zo'e}, to me. {tu'o} 
> corresponds to {zo'e} when used in a sumti and to {zo'e} or {zi'o}, 
> depending on the operation, when used in a mex.

I agree with Pierre.

Since both a zi'o-counterpart and a zo'e-counterpart would make sense
in mekso, there seems to be a need for a new PA to be a zo'e
counterpart. It would be best to leave tu'o as a zi'o-counterpart,
because that is how it is in the Refgram.

(I'm assuming that the Refgram is more set in stone than the English
glosses-cum-definitions of cmavo.)

--And.