gleki wrote:
> durka42 wrote:
> > Why is this needed when lu'o exists?
>
>
> fi'o gunma proposed by latro'a.
>
> The advantage is to explain the grammar in fewer selma'o.
It doesn't seem like LAhE is going away anytime soon.

> Don't multiply entities when the sufficient tools are at hand already!
Uh... yes? That was exactly the motivation for my question.

Comment #4: Re: lu'o

gleki (Thu Aug 28 16:54:45 2014)

durka42 wrote: > gleki wrote: > > durka42 wrote: > > > Why is this needed when lu'o exists? > > > > > > fi'o gunma proposed by latro'a. > > > > The advantage is to explain the grammar in fewer selma'o. > It doesn't seem like LAhE is going away anytime soon. The same question goes for la'e. It doesn't explain a lot. tu'a is even worse (just use lo su'u co'e). > > > Don't multiply entities when the sufficient tools are at hand already! > Uh... yes? That was exactly the motivation for my question. lu'o doesnt explain distributivity. What bridi is it based on? Whereas fi'o gunma is pretty straightforward and you know what brivla is inside.

Comment #5: Re: lu'o Alex Burka (Thu Aug 28 16:59:05 2014) gleki wrote: > durka42 wrote: > > gleki wrote: > > > durka42 wrote: > > > > Why is this needed when lu'o exists? > > > > > > > > > fi'o gunma proposed by latro'a. > > > > > > The advantage is to explain the grammar in fewer selma'o. > > It doesn't seem like LAhE is going away anytime soon. > > The same question goes for la'e. It doesn't explain a lot. tu'a is > even worse (just use lo su'u co'e). > > > > > > Don't multiply entities when the sufficient tools are at hand already! > > Uh... yes? That was exactly the motivation for my question. > > lu'o doesnt explain distributivity. What bridi is it based on? > Whereas fi'o gunma is pretty straightforward and you know what brivla > is inside. I guess I would advocate for writing Lojban definitions of la'e and lu'o and the rest instead of adding more cmavo. gu'au je fa is kind of unwieldy and doesn't even work without tag unification. Comment #6: Re: lu'o gleki (Thu Aug 28 17:04:12 2014) durka42 wrote: > gleki wrote: > > durka42 wrote: > > > gleki wrote: > > > > durka42 wrote: > > > > > Why is this needed when lu'o exists? > > > > > > > > > > > > fi'o gunma proposed by latro'a. > > > > > > > > The advantage is to explain the grammar in fewer selma'o. > > > It doesn't seem like LAhE is going away anytime soon. > > > > The same question goes for la'e. It doesn't explain a lot. tu'a is > > even worse (just use lo su'u co'e). > > > > > > > > > Don't multiply entities when the sufficient tools are at hand > already! > > > Uh... yes? That was exactly the motivation for my question. > > > > lu'o doesnt explain distributivity. What bridi is it based on? > > Whereas fi'o gunma is pretty straightforward and you know what > brivla > > is inside. > > I guess I would advocate for writing Lojban definitions of la'e and > lu'o and the rest instead of adding more cmavo. gu'au je fa is > kind of unwieldy and doesn't even work without tag unification. la'e ~= lo se sinxa be lo I can't see any ways of expressing loi otherwise than what is presented. Ask latro'a