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