WikiDiscuss

> pc:
>
> But {se balvi} is just {purci}, so perhaps we should exchange {ba} and {pu},
> a suggestion that has been made – and rejected – before; it’s very Irish so
> not an irrational one. But it fails the “preserve past text” stricture. I
> think it is better just to recognize that tense PU behaves differently from
> BAI, which is hardly surprising.

It is surprizing for someone who expects Lojban to be regular.
You can't learn a single rule for the relationship between
{<tag> gi ... gi ...} and {... i <tag> bo ...}. You need to
learn different rules for different tags.

> <<x:
> For some strange reason {X iju Y} corresponds to {gu X gi Y}, instead
> of {gu Y gi X}.

pc:
> On the other hand, how else would we do {gu}? Even if we swithced {gu} and
> {se gu}(?!) there would still be the same separation.

How so?

{gu X gi Y} would correspond to {Y iju X}
{segu X gi Y} would correspond to {Y iseju X}.

Currently it is the other way around.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/