From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Aug 10 18:46:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 11 Aug 2001 01:46:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 47151 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2001 01:46:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Aug 2001 01:46:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta3 with SMTP; 11 Aug 2001 01:46:39 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7B1kcD21935 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 21:46:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 21:46:38 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] {kai'i} In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, John Cowan wrote: > And Rosta scripsit: > > Recent distinct threads have established > > > > (a) that {ka} is redundant, since {du'u} can serve all the > > functions of current {ka} > > It is redundant only in a version of Lojban where you are not permitted > to elide "ce'u". To justify a new cmavo (ka) only to avoid the confusion from eliding another one (ce'u) seems wasteful and actually un-Lojbanic. It sticks out from the language at a weird angle; is there any other such case of such redundancy in the cmavo? It seems a lot more elegant to actually ditch ka, with the exception of lujvo. ----- "I have never been active in politics or in any act against occupation, but the way the soldiers killed Mizyed has filled me with hatred and anger. Now I'm ready to carry out a suicide attack inside Israel," one of the witnesses said.