From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 04 13:48:44 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 04 May 2005 13:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DTQnN-0005JY-5U for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 04 May 2005 13:48:37 -0700 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.206]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DTQnL-0005JG-80 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 04 May 2005 13:48:37 -0700 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so365260wri for ; Wed, 04 May 2005 13:48:04 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=BW5Bb4kxVGAHHkQ9B7FWoZfCdSMvCGGn7E8OengbcKUoA4QfcaVlh8o3FUZgNfE3hj8xiY7uDx5Q0HNxcjVI0JoOPFjPajEZXrqYdu798+0NLwhscvKvpChJrWm7wd3s3Amv3joMDt0dGWcRVLJC0NYM+Ccx8DpeF1/AFPL54U8= Received: by 10.54.122.7 with SMTP id u7mr537036wrc; Wed, 04 May 2005 13:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.67.20 with HTTP; Wed, 4 May 2005 13:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d1756050504134847257a97@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 17:48:03 -0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: I have a problem with "la nicte cadzu" In-Reply-To: <20050504203234.GC7298@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <20050504203234.GC7298@chain.digitalkingdom.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 9924 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/4/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:26:38PM -0400, Betsemes wrote: > [snip] > > so I guess it should be "muvgau" instead of "muvygau". > > Fixed. > > Thanks. BTW, under the new&improved camxes morphology, {muvygau} is an acceptable variant of {muvgau}, just like {muvdygau}, {muvgasnu}, etc. mu'o mi'e xorxes