From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon May 08 13:51:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4667 invoked from network); 8 May 2000 20:51:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 May 2000 20:51:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.178) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 May 2000 20:51:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 76738 invoked by uid 0); 8 May 2000 20:51:06 -0000 Message-ID: <20000508205106.76737.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 12.128.10.26 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 08 May 2000 13:51:05 PDT X-Originating-IP: [12.128.10.26] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Intro and Questions Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 13:51:05 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" pc: >xorxes: >< >you might even be allowed {le do zo zo'u}). > >It doesn't parse. You can make it {le do me zo zo'u}, >or, weird but possible, {le do pa zo zo'u}.>> > >Thanks. I can't get this rule straight. I suppose that the problem here >is that {le} absorbs {do} into a new LE. Does it absorb {pu} and {vi} as >well? I don't think that's how it works. You can insert {do} into {le me zo zo'u} or into {le pa zo zo'u}, but you cannot insert it into {le zo zo'u} because this is not a well formed sumti. At least that's how I picture it. You can't say that {le} absorbs {do} into a new LE, because in that case the new LE would absorb {zo zo'u} into yet another LE. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com