Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 20 Aug 1993 10:52:14 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 20 Aug 1993 10:51:51 -0400 Message-Id: <199308201451.AA02972@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8327; Fri, 20 Aug 93 10:50:34 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 1038; Fri, 20 Aug 93 10:53:15 EDT Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 10:51:21 EDT Reply-To: Jorge LLambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge LLambias Subject: Re: spuda le nu co'u casnu X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Fri Aug 20 06:51:21 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET > > 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 > Ok, I'll stop talking about what I see as a confusing assignment, if everyone agrees that it's not worth discussing. There's plenty to talk on the sumtcita semantics, anyway. Jorge (This time you should get only one copy, sorry about the double copies before.)