From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:58:43 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 27232 invoked from network); 23 Dec 1996 18:04:32 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 23 Dec 1996 18:04:32 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <13.962576AE@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 19:04:29 +0100
Date:         Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:48:20 GMT
Reply-To:     Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: PLI: zoigy. unless .gy. xelfanva lu secau
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 479
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <nrPjQr-mbsP.A.76B.j60kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

>>.i .ie .iku'i lo se valsi befila .inglic. so'imei

>"cu so'imei", right?

.i .oiro'e

>Otherwise it becomes a tanru with "valsi befila
>.inglic."  No parser

({lo <[(se valsi) (be {fi <la inglic>} BE'O)] [so'i mei]> KU} VAU)

The cmene doesn't terminate the internal sumti!

Another point, should it be "loi se valsi" since "mei" is defined in terms
of "a mass with <n> elements".  Is it a semantic error to use a individuals or
a set as the first argument?

ni'o co'omi'e dn.