Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id FAA10994 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Fri, 22 Sep 1995 05:05:49 -0400
Message-Id: <199509220905.FAA10994@locke.ccil.org>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 9DC39849 ; Fri, 22 Sep 1995 3:04:37 -0400
Date:         Thu, 21 Sep 1995 23:17:04 EDT
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: {soi}
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Sep 22 05:06:02 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU

And:
> We should distinguish either between
>    sumti               v.  vlasui/sumvla
>    duu, bridi          v.  vlabri/brivla
>                            (but this last standardly means selbrivla)
> or
>    sibsui/sumsio       v.  sumti
>    duu, sibbri/brisio  v.  bridi
>
> The giuste supports the former. Actual usage supports the latter.

That's my impression too. When I asked Goran whether he thought
{mi sumti} or {zo mi sumti} was correct in some context like {mi klama},
he said that the second one was right. That's how we use "sumti", even
though the definition suggests that {mi sumti} should be right.

Jorge