From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Aug 05 07:27:37 2001
Return-Path: <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 14:27:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 67104 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 14:27:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 14:27:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n10.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.60) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 14:27:32 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: jjllambias@hotmail.com
Received: from [10.1.2.211] by ej.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2001 14:27:29 -0000
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 14:27:28 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: tu'o (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a
Message-ID: <9kjl4g+bkb4@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010804234833.00c27c20@pop.cais.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 409
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 200.69.11.40
From: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9219


la lojbab cusku di'e

> Since it is elliptical, it has unspecified value which is to be 
inferred 
> from context if important.  
[...] 
> For the same reason, we do not presume that zo'e stands for "noda".

I think the counterpart of {zo'e} should be {no'o}, not {tu'o}.
{tu'o} is the counterpart of {zi'o}. At least that's what "used 
in unary operations" suggests to me.

mu'o mi'e xorxes