Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tHZTD-0000ZUC; Mon, 20 Nov 95 18:53 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 8EEA3A7E ; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 17:53:27 +0100 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 11:44:15 -0500 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: vuo X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK, Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199511191952.OAA04856@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 19, 95 04:00:29 pm Content-Length: 947 Lines: 28 la .and. cusku di'e > On the subject of {vuo}, is there a way to get: > > by e [dy e gy vou ne zy] > > ? Will it work if one resorts to > > by e ke dy e gy vou ne zy kee > > ? And if that will work, must one resort to it? Yes, no, no. The brackets for sumti connection are not ke/ke'e, but LAhE/lu'u. In the beginning, there was only lu'i/lu'u, and they were pure brackets and without semantic content. Then they became transmogrified into set/mass/individual converters, as a result of my being misled by the incautious word "set" in the definition of lu'i. Then LUhI and LAhE got their grammar merged under the name of LAhE. So to say what you want you need by .e lu'a dy .e gy. lu'u ne zy. assuming, that is, that your variables really do refer to individuals and not masses or sets, to avoid unwanted conversions. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.