From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Jan 14 16:44:53 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 15 Jan 2002 00:44:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 50457 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2002 00:44:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Jan 2002 00:44:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.137) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jan 2002 00:44:52 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:44:52 -0800 Received: from 200.69.6.50 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:44:52 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] po'u considered harmful Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:44:52 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2002 00:44:52.0583 (UTC) FILETIME=[D8148F70:01C19D5D] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.50] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la djan cusku di'e >No. When the referents are plural, "du" distributes >one-for-one: if I say that le mreni du le barda >that means that the men (that I have in mind) are the >same as the big ones (that I have in mind). That would mean that {du} works differently than any other selbri, it massifies all of its arguments! So: {re broda cu du re brode} is NOT equivalent to {ro da poi broda ku'o ro de poi brode zo'u da du de}? This would be an extremely bad thing. I don't think {du} should behave so excenctrically. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com