Return-Path: Received: from fiport.funet.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rar3o-00001EC; Sat, 4 Feb 95 22:26 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (MAILER@SEARN) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-13 #2494) id <01HMNXCA2SLC0014W2@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Sat, 04 Feb 1995 20:22:03 +0200 (EET) Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6260; Sat, 4 Feb 1995 21:22:59 +0100 Date: Sat, 04 Feb 1995 15:30:01 -0500 (EST) From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: jorne Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Message-id: <01HMNXCA36PU0014W2@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 501 Lines: 18 la lojbab cusku di'e > > I still abhor zi'o and would thus never suggest it %~) i pa lo rirci be le ka mi traji tugni la lojbab i mi ji'a tolneitce zo zi'o i la and cusku di'e > Is the abhorrence to the notion of creating a new selbri by removing > a sumti place of another selbri, or is it to the syntactic device of > filling the sumti place by {ziho}, which looks like a sumti? i mi le pamoi i pe'i au lo me zo zi'o selbri cu selplixau nagi'a dunli lo na'e me zo zi'o selbri co'o mi'e xorxes