From nicholas@uci.edu Wed Aug 22 16:14:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nicholas@uci.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 22 Aug 2001 23:14:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 14250 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2001 23:14:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Aug 2001 23:14:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e4e.oac.uci.edu) (128.200.222.10) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Aug 2001 23:14:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (nicholas@localhost) by e4e.oac.uci.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25975; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:14:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: e4e.oac.uci.edu: nicholas owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:14:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: To: Cc: Nick NICHOLAS Subject: Re: status of ka (was Re: [lojban] x3 of du' Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Nick NICHOLAS xorxes usage is what I want to take up from now on. Let's get some consensus, people, and for god's sake let's not *force* people to use ce'u, when it's obvious what they mean. The all-ce'u view, as I take it, is a restatement of the no-ce'u view: both of them involve not singling out *any* place above the others. I think the majority still thinks {ka} is all about such singling out. What Lojbab was thinking when he came up with ka and/or du'u is overruled by what the Book says, or where the Book isn't clear (and there is thus no baseline policing anything), by what we now think it should mean. (Prior usage usually also matters, but in this case has been ruled irrelevant because erroneous, it seems.) -- == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == Nick Nicholas, Breathing {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu} nicholas@uci.edu -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias