Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA03028
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>); Mon, 1 Aug 1994 12:44:00 -0400
Message-Id: <199408011644.AA03028@nfs1.digex.net>
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0855; Mon, 01 Aug 94 12:45:34 EDT
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0533; Mon, 1 Aug 1994 12:44:53 -0400
Date:         Mon, 1 Aug 1994 12:45:11 EDT
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Comparisons
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Aug  1 12:46:07 1994
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU

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