Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA03653
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>); Sun, 18 Dec 1994 11:42:55 -0500
Message-Id: <199412181642.AA03653@nfs1.digex.net>
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 3306; Sun, 18 Dec 94 11:39:03 EST
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7368; Sun, 18 Dec 1994 11:39:03 -0500
Date:         Sun, 18 Dec 1994 16:36:32 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: fractionators
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Sat, 17 Dec 94 14:09:32 EST.)
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Sun Dec 18 11:42:58 1994
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu

Jorge:
> > At any rate, I think "lei" should behave exactly like "le pa", and
> > "loi" exactly like "lo pa".
>
> I agree wholeheartedly.
>
> (I take it you are talking about their behaviour vis-a-vis fractionators,
> not that {lei broda} should mean {le pa broda}. This is obvious, but just
> in case your sentence is too out of context.)

That's right: behaviour vis-a-vis fractionators is what I meant.

--
And