Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from fiport.funet.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0raosV-00001EC; Sat, 4 Feb 95 20:06 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (MAILER@SEARN)
 by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-13 #2494)
 id <01HMNSGWEGMO002MFP@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Sat, 04 Feb 1995 18:02:13 +0200 (EET)
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN)
 by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1495; Sat,
 4 Feb 1995 19:03:09 +0100
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 1995 18:05:19 +0000
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: jorne
In-reply-to: (Your message of Sat, 04 Feb 95 06:38:38 EST.)
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Message-id: <01HMNSGWHG02002MFP@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 274
Lines: 9

Lojbab:
> I still abhor zi'o and would thus never suggest it %~)

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?

---
And