Subject: Re: [lojban] selma'o considered harmful

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 12:47:35 -0400

Pierre Abbat wrote:

> What about "du"? According to the cmavo list, it's in selma'o GOhA, but the 
> only difference between GOhA and BRIVLA is that GOhA can be followed by ra'o, 
> and "du ra'o" doesn't make sense. So could "du" be said to be in selma'o 
> BRIVLA?

Originally "du" was in its own selma'o, DU, and was permitted only

as a selbri_B_132 (IIRC). But I somewhat hastily over-generalized it
into selma'o GOhA, thus permitting some highly dubious constructs like
tanru with du.

-- 
There is / one art || John Cowan <[email-masked]>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein