From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Tue Aug 31 20:17:46 1993
Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 1 Sep 1993 00:18:33 -0400
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 1 Sep 1993 00:18:29 -0400
Message-Id: <199309010418.AA01692@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 5445; Wed, 01 Sep 93 00:17:00 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with
 BSMTP id 3777; Wed, 01 Sep 93 00:19:52 EDT
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1993 00:17:46 EDT
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>
Subject:      Re: ZAhO as sumti tcita
X-To:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
X-Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: O
X-Status: 

This is off the top of my head, but one transform that seems like it should work
in interpreting ZAhO compounds as sumti tcita is to make what I hope is a/the
valid transformation:

mi klama puza'o lenu carvi =>
ca'o lenu mi klama kei puza'o carvi

Or maybe that should be co'i instead of ca'o ...
But I think that looking at this type of transofrm will give consistent answers
regardless of what how complex the za'o mess is (though again it won't work
with bare pu/ca/ba).

lojbab