From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:54:58 2010
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 1993 04:00:36 -0500
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 2469; Thu, 18 Mar 93 03:59:27 EST
Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP  id 6174; Thu, 18 Mar 93 04:00:41 EST
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1993 09:01:04 GMT
Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: I.Alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK
Subject:      RE: TECH: *mo'u
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Erik Rauch <erikr@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
Status: O
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Mar 18 09:01:04 1993
X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET
Message-ID: <jHveP5GJz1N.A.D6.C30kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

According to the version of the grammar I checked in,
we can already have a non-logical termset,
if we don't mind using forethought:

        nu'ijo'ugi mi bau la lojban gi dy. bau la gliban. tavla do ti

(where I think the {nu'u} _is_ elidable).
Termsets _are_ the way to go.

Colin's use of {fa'u} balancing a {ce} (or whatever)
rather than another {fa'u} is interesting,
and yes, I think it _does_ work.

mi'e .i,n.