Re: TECH: grammar updates

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>]

In checking all of these usages, how do you KNOW that the comparsion was
not incidentally claiming the 2nd (I guess maybe if you have the translation
you can see this).  I also think "semau" is quite usable with "pe" as well,
though I agree that people will more often tend to use a lujvo, since we are
used to having a comparative suffix in English.  Languages that use
comparatives with grammatical structures rather than a morphological ending
might be more prone to the cmavo version of comparison.

I don't think that the ne/pe version is "confusing", as you claim.  Indeed
it seems to me to serve as an ideal example of how "ne" DOES make the
secondary claim about the relative sumti, making the teaching of "ne"
clearer.  YOu then make the textbook explain that the more common English
usage needs to use a different selbri, which again serves to focus people
on thinking about what they are really saying.  This after all is what
Colin did in arguing us out of restoring "mo'u".  The need for such reality
checks in teaching the logical aspects of the grammar is vital to the
success of same.

lojbab