[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 3/3/02 7:28 PM, Rob Speer at rob@hidden.email wrote: > On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 05:32:55PM -0800, Mike Wright wrote: >> They both seem fine to me. However, wasn't it Ray who said (speaking >> of "jo" for "coffee") that it might be a good idea to save CV words >> for grammatical particles? That could be a reason to go for something longer. > > This would be nice. As part of my Lojban bias, I'd like it if _all_ CV > words were grammatical particles, but that would require changing lots > of words like 'pe'. All CV or all CV(V)? You know, Ceqli started as a proposal for relexifying Loglan, just as you say. If we were to go in that direction, tho, I think one of L's biggest mistakes was making numbers into little words. All in all, I think L had too many things classified as grammatical particles. Do you ever get that feeling? -- >PLEASE NOTE MY NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS: rmay@hidden.email > Rex F. May (Baloo) > Daily cartoon at: http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/baloo.asp > Buy my book at: http://www.kiva.net/~jonabook/gdummy.htm > Language site at: http://www.geocities.com/ceqli/Uploadexp.htm >Discuss my auxiliary language at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/txeqli/