From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Oct 30 06:49:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 30 Oct 2001 14:49:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 89311 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2001 14:49:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Oct 2001 14:49:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Oct 2001 14:49:28 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:25:53 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:00:24 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:59:49 +0000 To: pycyn , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin >>> 10/29/01 09:43pm >>> #jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: #> I am not commenting on the lo'e/le'e construal because I agree #> with it completely. # #With whose version, and if with And's, can you explain it, please? (The l= ast=20 #round he said that {lo'e broda} was abstract but did not have properties t= hat=20 #no broda had!)=20 My mistake, if I said that. No, I don't think {lo'e broda} is abstract on t= he=20 construal I proposed for it. --And.