Re: 'e' Xlu' vs net X, was Re: grammar questions

["David Trimboli" <SuStel@hotmail.com>]

From: "Andrew Strader" <strader@decode.is>
> Is there any reason that "'e' Xlu'" has to have a different meaning from
"net
> X" in order for it to be allowed? By analogy, just because we have "wen",
> that doesn't mean that "jar ret" is invalid. Certain things can have more
> than one way of being said.

So is it your opinion that /net/ is never required?  That it is totally
optional?  If /'e' X-lu'/ is allowed at all times, what is the point of
/net/?

I can certainly agree that there are times when a language will have more
than one tool to do something, but in this case declaring /'e' X-lu'/ to be
identical to /net X/ would seem to make the whole word /net/ absolutely
pointless.  I can also agree that languages can have tools whose functions
have been taken over by other tools.  Do you believe that is what has
happened with /net/?

I might be able to buy Tad's theory, but given that TKD tells us when /net/
is SUPPOSED to be used, I'll have a little more trouble with this one.  :)

SuStel
Stardate 2531.7