Return-Path: <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@BITMAIL.LSOFT.COM>
Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tDBIM-0000ZTC; Wed, 8 Nov 95 16:16 EET
Message-Id: <m0tDBIM-0000ZTC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 906D63FA ; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 15:15:55 +0100
Date:         Wed, 8 Nov 1995 09:12:14 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: TECH: proposed acceptance of TLI "me" interpretation
X-To:         cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 349
Lines: 11

But this "me" WOULD invalidate my description of your reference grammar
style as quintessential me la kau,n.  Which seems somewhat stronger than
"srana" - maybe "steci"???

Maybe we need to beg the question like JCB did and add our own "me'a"
equivalent.

Be specific as to the place structure of predicates made with your version of
 "me".

lojbab