From pycyn@aol.com Mon May 08 09:07:43 2000
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
Received: (qmail 29721 invoked from network); 8 May 2000 16:07:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 May 2000 16:07:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo14.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.4) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 May 2000 16:07:43 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id a.78.4f48a9b (3872) for <lojban@egroups.com>; Mon, 8 May 2000 12:07:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <78.4f48a9b.26484049@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 12:07:37 EDT
Subject: RE: Intro and Questions
To: lojban@egroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 33
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2581

xorxes:
<<pc:
>you might even be allowed {le do zo zo'u}).

It doesn't parse. You can make it {le do me zo zo'u},
or, weird but possible, {le do pa zo zo'u}.>>

Thanks.  I can't get this rule straight.  I suppose that the problem here is 
that {le} absorbs {do} into a new LE.  Does it absorb {pu} and {vi} as well?