From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 13 18:15:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 14 Aug 2001 01:15:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 52672 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2001 01:15:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Aug 2001 01:15:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Aug 2001 01:15:41 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.56]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010814011540.MSIU20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 02:15:40 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] {kai'i} Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 02:13:59 +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" John: > Invent Yourself scripsit: > > > Are you stating that ce'u can be elided because it's always assumed to be > > in the first empty place? The Book examples indicate otherwise, unless I > > am mistaken. > > No, it can be elided because people are capable of glorking its presence > from context, like any other elision. There is no requirement that the > elision be from the x1 place. Hence my wish to eschew the "convention" that fills empty x1 with ke'a and ce'u. Do you think that ma kau can be elided? For example, can {mi djuno loi du'u klama} mean "I know who went" (or "I know where he went to")? My view is that truthconditionally, zo'e ought to strictly mean nothing but "su'o da", with maximally narrow scope. Stronger claims can be inferred pragmatically. > > What is there is sufficiently contradictory that I have agreed with And > > Rosta's argument that ce'u should always be used with ka. Then ka becomes > > redundant, except where the kam- rafsi is used. > > Redundancy is a Good Thing. Not a good enough argument to motivate new cmavo, though. If someone proposes a new cmavo to say something that can already be said in a different way, then people will tend to reject the new cmavo. --And.