From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Fri Aug 20 16:37:28 1993
Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 20 Aug 1993 10:39:22 -0400
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 20 Aug 1993 10:39:15 -0400
Message-Id: <199308201439.AA02843@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 8255; Fri, 20 Aug 93 10:37:58 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with
 BSMTP id 0927; Fri, 20 Aug 93 10:40:37 EDT
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1993 15:37:28 +0100
Reply-To: Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: spuda le nu co'u casnu
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: O
X-Status: 

.ie .u'u mi na'e zgana zo jo

.i ko pe'u do'u jai ranji .i mi so'o roi se cinri


I was a little overstating the case. Much of the
discussion is interesting, though I cannot be
bothered with it all.  But any time I see you
talking about the assignment of pu'o and ba'o,
I reach for the delete key. Their original assignment
was done for a reason. It may or may not be 'wrong'
by the standards of the current language. But they're
baselined and it's a dead issue. Please give up trying
to prove otherwise.

        Colin