Re: TECH: *mo'u

[John Cowan <cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>]

la .i,n. cusku di'e

> According to the version of the grammar I checked in,
> we can already have a non-logical termset,
> if we don't mind using forethought:

Correct.  However, that was considered an artifact of the grammatical
equivalence of geks and joigiks.  Now that there is a reason for
non-logical termsets, it is probably worthwhile to allow (afterthought)
joiks explicitly.

> Colin's use of {fa'u} balancing a {ce} (or whatever)
> rather than another {fa'u} is interesting,
> and yes, I think it _does_ work.

I think a "ce'o" is needed rather than a "ce", otherwise there is no
inherent order:  A ce B === B ce A.

--
John Cowan      cowan@snark.thyrsus.com         ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan
                        e'osai ko sarji la lojban.