Received: from access2.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA18161
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@nfs1.digex.net>); Fri, 16 Dec 1994 15:30:27 -0500
Received: by access2.digex.net id AA28624
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Fri, 16 Dec 1994 15:29:34 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412162029.AA28624@access2.digex.net>
Subject: Re: scope of zo
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 15:29:33 -0500 (EST)
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group)
In-Reply-To: <199412160031.AA22629@nfs1.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Dec 15, 94 07:06:09 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length:        644
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 16 15:30:32 1994
X-From-Space-Address: lojbab

la .and cusku di'e

> > zo mav rafsi zo mavji
> 
> What distinguishes this from
> 
>   zo mavrafsi zo mavji ...
> 
> or
> 
>   zo ma vrafsi [supposing there is a rafsi vra]
> 
> ? "mavrafsi" fails tosmabru test, so change example to:
> 
>   zo mla rafsi   vs.   zo mlarafsi

You are pretty near right, but technically "mav" is an alternative way
of writing the name "mav." and "zo mav." is fine.

However, in general, quoting rafsi with "zo" is a bad idea, because "zo"
is meant for words, and rafsi are not words.  Better "zoi rafsi. mav .rafsi".

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.