From ragnarok@pobox.com Sun Feb 10 13:52:47 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 10 Feb 2002 21:52:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 2789 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2002 21:52:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2002 21:52:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.246) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 2002 21:52:46 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id ABED90C3007C; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 16:53:49 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] le ninmu cukta Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 16:52:45 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13212 >Same would be with the 1993 definition of {cukta} where x2 was >a subject/theme/story. With the present (1994) definition where >x2 is the content the effect is lost, however. Huh. I thought subject matter was a subset of content. I guess not.