Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931014135733.1024@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 1993 13:31:22 BST
Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Sender: vilva
From: Iain Alexander <I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu
To: Veijo Vilva <VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi>
Content-Length: 820
Lines: 18

la lojbab. cusku di'e
> Nora gave a brief response to what I described of your message.  She thinks
> that lujvo of the form of bangycusku (or other example you may select) are
> covered by the "be" convention, such that the places, which you are "adding"
> by introducing the term, are in effect "be BAI" (or in some cases "be fi'o
> brivla") forms.  She agress that this application of the convention needs
> to be covered in Nick's paper and she thinks it isn;t, but it is not
> necessarily a new kind of lujvo, conventionally-speaking.

I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that, since in {bangycusku},
{bangu} is the {broda} in the {be fi'o broda} tag that we're using
to add the new sumti, rather than suggesting a sumti introduced
by the tag.

But then maybe la nitcion. can do some fast talking. %~}

mi'e .i,n.