From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Jul 30 15:10:56 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 37665 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2003 22:10:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m17.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Jul 2003 22:10:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2003 22:10:55 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19hz9r-0007AS-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:10:55 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hz9f-0007A6-00; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:10:43 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:10:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from reserved-nts4.cec.wustl.edu ([128.252.21.253] helo=moth.int.cec.wustl.edu) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hz9V-00079v-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:10:33 -0700 Received: from localhost (adam@localhost) by moth.int.cec.wustl.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6UMEvE18053 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:14:57 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: moth.int.cec.wustl.edu: adam owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:14:57 -0500 (CDT) X-X-Sender: adam@moth.int.cec.wustl.edu To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: le duX In-Reply-To: <00d501c356e5$4c6e4360$3f3d0751@oemcomputer> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 6008 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: adam@pubcrawler.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: "Adam D. Lopresto" From: "Adam D. Lopresto" Reply-To: adam@pubcrawler.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20490 On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, And Rosta wrote: > The original question can be reposed as: What fills the gap in the > following pattern? > > go'a-series : ra-series > broda-series : ke'a-series > bu'a-series : da-series > co'e : ??????? The answer to that is obviously zo'e. So I ask again, what's so terribly wrong with zo'e? That's what's bugging me with this whole conversation. "le du" instantly raises for me the question "le du ma" and of course the only answer, since we're missing an argument, is "le du zo'e". So why use le du zo'e instead of zo'e? -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ Computers can never replace human stupidity.