"ko" considered bad

[Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>]

la xorxes. pu cusku di'e

> What's more inconsistent is that mi, mi'o, mi'a, ma'a and do'o don't
> have an imperative version. But they are not needed, just as {ko} is
> not really needed. In my opinion, the "imperativity" does not really
> belong in a sumti.

Yes, I see what what you mean.  Now that I have the imperative using
attitudinals, it is a very much better way to do things than using "ko".  Is
"ko" a relic?  It is certainly an easy concept for a beginner to grasp, but
a lojbani can achieve much finer gradations of meaning without it.

.i mi gi'e pu gi ba na bacru zo ko
I previously, and subsequently not, uttered "ko".
I spoke "ko", but never will again.  (I hope a guessed the right connective
and scope - there seems to be so many of them :-)

co'o mi'e dn.