Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qLoSe-000021C; Thu, 7 Jul 94 11:05 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0qLoSe-000021C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 2153; Thu, 07 Jul 94 11:04:21 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2150; Thu, 7 Jul 1994 10:37:04 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8951; Thu, 7 Jul 1994 01:56:43 +0200
Date:         Wed, 6 Jul 1994 20:00:17 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Problem perhaps
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 442
Lines: 12

> Nora feels that we should have an operator in LAhE, to go along with
> lu'a/lu'i/lu'o cinverters, which would exlicitly treat the sumti inside as
> distributed indivduals.  I could accept this argument if there is agreement.

Can't {lu'a} do this job?

        mi spuda lu'a ro notci bau le ri bangu

It already has to identify what it acts upon as a mass or a set, why not let
it act also on individuals to clearly distribute them?

Jorge