From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 07 19:34:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 8 Aug 2001 02:34:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 6858 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2001 02:34:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Aug 2001 02:34:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Aug 2001 02:33:55 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.30]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010808023353.VYOF29790.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 03:33:53 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] {kai'i} Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 03:32:59 +0100 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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > la and cusku di'e > > >I first propose a NU, {kai'i}, meaning "ckaji (be le ka)". > > Isn't that {seka}? {ka} doesn't have an x2. I once swore blind that I had a ma'oste showing that it did, much to Lojbab's consternation, first, and to my embarrassment, later, when I checked and found I had misremembered. Before proposing {kai'i} I had thought of proposing that {ka} be given an x2, but I see no reason for the x1, since the x1 is the same as what's contained in the ka bridi. Proposing {kai'i} seems more consistent with the baseline and with desirable place structures. --And.