cogas wrote:\%\%\%> gleki wrote:\%\%\%> > cogas wrote:\%\%\%> > > See: \%\%\%> > > \%\%\%> > \%\%\%> \%\%\%http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9PSNpsZoVHY/VcRLXSRZemI/AAAAAAAAAsQ/J0injdTtMBs/s\%\%\%> > > 1600/romai.png\%\%\%> > > \%\%\%> > > xa'o indicates the point "natural beginning point".\%\%\%> > \%\%\%> > \%\%\%> > Look at the last table: \%\%\%> > http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Stub:_Grammatical_aspects\%\%\%> > \%\%\%> > mo'u is the opposite of co'a.\%\%\%> \%\%\%> Is the view official? If so, I will accept and I also think that xo'u \%\%\%is \%\%\%> not needed.\%\%\%\%\%\%I have no clue who can give you official view. You may either ask lojbab or\%\%\%BPFK (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bpfk-list)\%\%\%

Comment #8: Re: Aspect scheme

Shotaro (Mon Aug 10 07:37:09 2015)

gleki wrote:\%\%\%> cogas wrote:\%\%\%> > gleki wrote:\%\%\%> > > cogas wrote:\%\%\%> > > > See: \%\%\%> > > > \%\%\%> > > \%\%\%> > \%\%\%> \%\%\%http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9PSNpsZoVHY/VcRLXSRZemI/AAAAAAAAAsQ/J0injdTtMBs/s\%\%\%> > > > 1600/romai.png\%\%\%> > > > \%\%\%> > > > xa'o indicates the point "natural beginning point".\%\%\%> > > \%\%\%> > > \%\%\%> > > Look at the last table: \%\%\%> > > http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Stub:_Grammatical_aspects\%\%\%> > > \%\%\%> > > mo'u is the opposite of co'a.\%\%\%> > \%\%\%> > Is the view official? If so, I will accept and I also think that xo'u\%\%\%\%\%\%> is \%\%\%> > not needed.\%\%\%> \%\%\%> I have no clue who can give you official view. You may either ask lojbab \%\%\%or\%\%\%> BPFK (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bpfk-list)\%\%\%\%\%\%OK. well, I'll change a question. Does many lojbanists accept the view that\%\%\%mo'u is the opposite of co'u? Or, is the article a mere proposal?\%\%\%

Comment #9: Re: Aspect scheme Shotaro (Mon Aug 10 07:38:13 2015) cogas wrote:\%\%\%> gleki wrote:\%\%\%> > cogas wrote:\%\%\%> > > gleki wrote:\%\%\%> > > > cogas wrote:\%\%\%> > > > > See: \%\%\%> > > > > \%\%\%> > > > \%\%\%> > > \%\%\%> > \%\%\%> \%\%\%http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9PSNpsZoVHY/VcRLXSRZemI/AAAAAAAAAsQ/J0injdTtMBs/s\%\%\%> > > > > 1600/romai.png\%\%\%> > > > > \%\%\%> > > > > xa'o indicates the point "natural beginning point".\%\%\%> > > > \%\%\%> > > > \%\%\%> > > > Look at the last table: \%\%\%> > > > http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Stub:_Grammatical_aspects\%\%\%> > > > \%\%\%> > > > mo'u is the opposite of co'a.\%\%\%> > > \%\%\%> > > Is the view official? If so, I will accept and I also think that \%\%\%xo'u\%\%\%> \%\%\%> > is \%\%\%> > > not needed.\%\%\%> > \%\%\%> > I have no clue who can give you official view. You may either ask \%\%\%lojbab \%\%\%> or\%\%\%> > BPFK (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bpfk-list)\%\%\%> \%\%\%> OK. well, I'll change a question. Does many lojbanists accept the view \%\%\%that\%\%\%> mo'u is the opposite of co'u? Or, is the article a mere proposal?\%\%\%\%\%\%u'u sa'ai co'a\%\%\% Comment #10: Re: Aspect scheme gleki (Mon Aug 10 07:39:43 2015) cogas wrote:\%\%\%> gleki wrote:\%\%\%> > cogas wrote:\%\%\%> > > gleki wrote:\%\%\%> > > > cogas wrote:\%\%\%> > > > > See: \%\%\%> > > > > \%\%\%> > > > \%\%\%> > > \%\%\%> > \%\%\%> \%\%\%http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9PSNpsZoVHY/VcRLXSRZemI/AAAAAAAAAsQ/J0injdTtMBs/s\%\%\%> > > > > 1600/romai.png\%\%\%> > > > > \%\%\%> > > > > xa'o indicates the point "natural beginning point".\%\%\%> > > > \%\%\%> > > > \%\%\%> > > > Look at the last table: \%\%\%> > > > http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Stub:_Grammatical_aspects\%\%\%> > > > \%\%\%> > > > mo'u is the opposite of co'a.\%\%\%> > > \%\%\%> > > Is the view official? If so, I will accept and I also think that \%\%\%xo'u\%\%\%> \%\%\%> > is \%\%\%> > > not needed.\%\%\%> > \%\%\%> > I have no clue who can give you official view. You may either ask \%\%\%lojbab \%\%\%> or\%\%\%> > BPFK (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bpfk-list)\%\%\%> \%\%\%> OK. well, I'll change a question. Does many lojbanists accept the view \%\%\%that\%\%\%> mo'u is the opposite of co'a? Or, is the article a mere proposal?\%\%\%\%\%\%a letter to BPFK needed.\%\%\% Comment #11: Re: Aspect scheme Shotaro (Mon Aug 10 07:42:30 2015) gleki wrote:\%\%\%> cogas wrote:\%\%\%> > gleki wrote:\%\%\%> > > cogas wrote:\%\%\%> > > > gleki wrote:\%\%\%> > > > > cogas wrote:\%\%\%> > > > > > See: \%\%\%> > > > > > \%\%\%> > > > > \%\%\%> > > > \%\%\%> > > \%\%\%> > \%\%\%> \%\%\%http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9PSNpsZoVHY/VcRLXSRZemI/AAAAAAAAAsQ/J0injdTtMBs/s\%\%\%> > > > > > 1600/romai.png\%\%\%> > > > > > \%\%\%> > > > > > xa'o indicates the point "natural beginning point".\%\%\%> > > > > \%\%\%> > > > > \%\%\%> > > > > Look at the last table: \%\%\%> > > > > http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Stub:_Grammatical_aspects\%\%\%> > > > > \%\%\%> > > > > mo'u is the opposite of co'a.\%\%\%> > > > \%\%\%> > > > Is the view official? If so, I will accept and I also think that \%\%\%> xo'u\%\%\%> > \%\%\%> > > is \%\%\%> > > > not needed.\%\%\%> > > \%\%\%> > > I have no clue who can give you official view. You may either ask \%\%\%> lojbab \%\%\%> > or\%\%\%> > > BPFK (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bpfk-list)\%\%\%> > \%\%\%> > OK. well, I'll change a question. Does many lojbanists accept the view \%\%\%> that\%\%\%> > mo'u is the opposite of co'a? Or, is the article a mere proposal?\%\%\%> \%\%\%> a letter to BPFK needed.\%\%\%\%\%\%je'e ki'e gleki\%\%\%