From phma@oltronics.net Tue Oct 30 20:31:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 31 Oct 2001 04:31:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 74196 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2001 04:31:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Oct 2001 04:31:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (216.189.29.241) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Oct 2001 04:31:33 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 907BD3C478; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:50:33 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Reply-To: phma@oltronics.net To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:50:32 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01103020503212.01133@neofelis> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com From: Pierre Abbat On Tuesday 30 October 2001 18:54, Jorge Llambias wrote: > {re lo'e kanla} doesn't make sense, there is only one {lo'e kanla}. le kanla be lo'e remna are, of course, lo'e zunle kanla and lo'e pritu kanla. So, xu lo'e zunle kanla cu me lo'e kanla? mi'e pier.