[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, Dec 22, 2002 at 02:27:42PM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote: [...]
> * Rejecting the DeLong/LeChevalier line of {lo prenu remei cu bevri},
> because if {remei} is a mass we're back to square one (it could still
> be one person doing the carrying), and if {remei} is a collective...
> well, that might work, but it needs a lot of thinking
Try jo'u.
Maybe, but not a general answer. {.e} is to {lo} as {joi} is to {loi} as {jo'u} is to... what? {lo romei be lo'i}?
[ I didn't read the whole message. I've been spending (wasting) too much time with jboske crap, which is currently quite a bit too tinkeringish for my taste. So no other response here. ]
Respected. The accusation of tinkeringness is valid if the main disputants are willing to sacrifice continuity (And and Jorge, consider yourselves tarred :-) ). But that the current system *is* a mess, that I believe is still clear. So we'll get back to you once the ontology settles.
-- DR NICK NICHOLAS. FRENCH/ITALIAN, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA. nickn@hidden.email Tour orghnie tou gerou na ninere, http://www.opoudjis.net tou p!ounte si na mh si ninere:"Hearken to an old man's advice --- not to his farts." Tsakonian proverb.