From phma@ixazon.dynip.com Mon Jan 06 05:58:40 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 06 Jan 2003 05:58:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from 208-150-110-21-adsl.precisionet.net ([208.150.110.21] helo=blackcat.ixazon.lan) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18VXlz-00031l-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 05:58:35 -0800 Received: by blackcat.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 06F9F24DB; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 13:58:04 +0000 (UTC) From: Pierre Abbat Organization: dis To: "'lojban-list@lojban.org'" Subject: [lojban] Re: unnecessary "be" Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 08:58:04 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200301060858.04539.phma@webjockey.net> X-archive-position: 3711 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Monday 06 January 2003 02:41, Newton, Philip wrote: > steven lytle wrote: > > if there's no LE, there should be no BE. right? > > > > {mi pu te xatra be do} should be just {mi pu te xatra do}. > > {mi nanmu gi'e pu te xatra be do} > {mi nanmu gi'e pu te xatra do}. > > I think you're right. Thanks; the {be} was probably carried over from when > there *was* a {le}. {be} is allowed, it's just not necessary. phma