From pycyn@aol.com Mon Oct 29 13:44:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 29 Oct 2001 21:44:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 93281 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2001 21:44:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 29 Oct 2001 21:44:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2001 21:44:15 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.c.1d5247fc (4068) for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:43:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:43:52 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c.1d5247fc.290f2798_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11754 --part1_c.1d5247fc.290f2798_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/29/2001 11:53:42 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > I am not commenting on the lo'e/le'e construal because I agree > with it completely. > With whose version, and if with And's, can you explain it, please? (The last round he said that {lo'e broda} was abstract but did not have properties that no broda had!) --part1_c.1d5247fc.290f2798_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/29/2001 11:53:42 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


I am not commenting on the lo'e/le'e construal because I agree
with it completely.


With whose version, and if with And's, can you explain it, please?  (The last round he said that {lo'e broda} was abstract but did not have properties that no broda had!) --part1_c.1d5247fc.290f2798_boundary--