> > > But why make it so complicated?
> >
> > Because this is how the ma'oste currently defines it!
> >
> > Jesus, is a little backwards compatibility worth *this* much of a
fight?
>
> I don't care all that much how tamsmi ends up being
> defined. As I said, it is unlikely that the word will
> ever be actually used. But I won't write definitions
> that I think are wrong just because they appear in
> the ma'oste. Since we can have two competing
> definitions here, there is no need to fight. People
> who want to keep the ma'oste definition can vote for
> it, and those who don't think it makes much sense can
> vote for something else.

That's a lovely idea, except that the ma'oste defines "te tai" and "ve
tai", and I'm doing the section that has them.

> I wouldn't even be sure how
> to write the ma'oste definition in Lojban.

x1 cu simsa x2 fi'o tarmi x3 x4

-Robin