Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: tu'o (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:16:32 +0100

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.