Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN>
Message-Id: <9204030322.AA00610@relay1.UU.NET>
Date: Fri Apr  3 01:44:19 1992
Reply-To: Undetermined origin c/o Postmaster <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!POSTMASTER>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
Comments:     <Parser> W: Invalid RFC822 field -- "(5.64+1.3.1+0.50); id
              AA21944 Fri, 3 Apr 1992 09:". Rest of header flushed.
Comments:     <Parser> E: "From:"/"Sender:" field is missing.
From: Undetermined origin c/o Postmaster <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!POSTMASTER>
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Apr  3 01:44:19 1992
X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN

Ivan, even if la'o-ing himself, does it again. Good use of UI, good choice
of words and all. Two comments:

>ni'o mu'a ka'u lo'e prenrgabrovo cu ka'arvi'u le rebla be levo'a mlatu
>tezu'e lenu ri sutra leka pagre le vorme kei seri'a lenu le kumfa
>nenri cu na lenku binxo

One. It'd be nicer stylistically if we killed one abstraction in there -
{sutra pagre} isn't all that ambiguous.
Two. I kept saying "where's the punchline". Um... sorry about that.

>to zo'ocu'i su'oko ri la lojban. xamgu fanva toi

u'ocu'izo'oru'e. {la'elo munje} or {lei se munjyzda}? Oh, and why the {pu}
in {zatsta}? Last time I checked, the world still existed...

>ni'o ko di'i cmila

go'ira'o

co'omi'e nitcion.