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 m0qV0SQ-000023C; Mon, 1 Aug 94 19:43 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0qV0SQ-000023C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 9388; Mon, 01 Aug 94 19:41:54 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9383; Mon, 1 Aug 1994 19:41:54 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2222; Mon, 1 Aug 1994 18:40:59 +0200
Date:         Mon, 1 Aug 1994 12:45:11 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: TECH: Comparisons
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 520
Lines: 27

I agree completely with Veijo's analysis.

I would also like to point out that:

>    (5) mi nelci maugi ti gi ta

hopefully some day can also be:

     *mi nelci ti (se)maubo ta

which would be the afterthought form of (5).


And something related to the sumti raising discussion:

>    (c) le ni mi nelci ti cu zmadu le ni mi nelci ta

I would like to know what is the answer to {zmadu fi ma} in (c).
Does (c) mean the same as:

        ti zmadu ta le ni mi nelci

?

Is there sumti raising going on somewhere?

Jorge