From phma@oltronics.net Sun Aug 05 08:11:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 15:11:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 75038 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 15:11:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 15:11:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (216.189.29.70) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 15:11:47 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 265223C5B3; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 11:11:28 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: phma@oltronics.net To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tu'o Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 11:08:22 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29.2] Content-Type: text/plain References: <9kjl4g+bkb4@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <9kjl4g+bkb4@eGroups.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01080511112801.28640@neofelis> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com From: Pierre Abbat X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9223 On Sun, 05 Aug 2001, jjllambias@hotmail.com wrote: >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. {no'o} seems to correspond to {zu'i}, not {zo'e}, to me. {tu'o} corresponds to {zo'e} when used in a sumti and to {zo'e} or {zi'o}, depending on the operation, when used in a mex. phma