From BestATN@aol.com Fri Jan 03 14:46:30 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: BestATN@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 3 Jan 2003 22:46:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 71606 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2003 22:46:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2003 22:46:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jan 2003 22:46:30 -0000 Received: from BestATN@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.3a.321f368a (14374) for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:46:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3a.321f368a.2b476cbf@aol.com> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:46:23 EST Subject: unnecessary "be" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3a.321f368a.2b476cbf_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10637 From: BestATN@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1155066 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbaner X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 18164 --part1_3a.321f368a.2b476cbf_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2003-01-03 9:31:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, la filip cusku di'e: > If the sex is not important, only the letter-writing, then {mi pu te xatra > be do} works, but if you want to include "man" then you have to bring the > {poi}-ness in somehow. And then {mi du lo nanmu poi pu te xatra be do} > sounds wrong again -- and {mi nanmu gi'e pu te xatra be do} sounds more > like > a {noi} connection than a {poi} one to me. Maybe {mi du pa le ro nanmu poi > pu te xatra be do} or something? Not sure whether {du} is correct in such a > case, since I'm not thinking of one letter-writing man in particular, only > stating that I am one such. > > mu'omi'e filip. > if there's no LE, there should be no BE. right? {mi pu te xatra be do} should be just {mi pu te xatra do}. {mi nanmu gi'e pu te xatra be do} > {mi nanmu gi'e pu te xatra do}. steven lytle --part1_3a.321f368a.2b476cbf_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2003-01-03 9:31:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,
la filip cusku di'e:

If the sex is not important, only the letter-writing, then {mi pu te xatra
be do} works, but if you want to include "man" then you have to bring the
{poi}-ness in somehow. And then {mi du lo nanmu poi pu te xatra be do}
sounds wrong again -- and {mi nanmu gi'e pu te xatra be do} sounds more like
a {noi} connection than a {poi} one to me. Maybe {mi du pa le ro nanmu poi
pu te xatra be do} or something? Not sure whether {du} is correct in such a
case, since I'm not thinking of one letter-writing man in particular, only
stating that I am one such.

mu'omi'e filip.

if there's no LE, there should be no BE.  right?

{mi pu te xatra be do} should be just {mi pu te xatra do}.
{mi nanmu gi'e pu te xatra be do} > {mi nanmu gi'e pu te xatra do}.

steven lytle
 --part1_3a.321f368a.2b476cbf_boundary--