From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 13 10:16:15 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 13 Aug 2001 17:16:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 76269 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2001 17:15:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142)
  by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2001 17:15:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43)
  by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Aug 2001 17:15:19 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.12]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com
  (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
  id <20010813171518.PEV23687.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 18:15:18 +0100
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] {kai'i}
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 18:14:06 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMGEPHEIAA.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
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
In-Reply-To: <E15VLr6-0004Hv-00@mercury.ccil.org>
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>

John:
> 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".

Yes. Xod & me compiled a list of reasons why eliding ce'u is a bad thing.
The discussions also noted that we can't elide Q-kau, or otherwise
indicated that an abstraction contains a Q-kau. The upshot: {ka}
doesn't earn its keep.

--And.