From jcowan@reutershealth.com Thu Nov 13 12:26:07 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 99519 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2003 20:26:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Nov 2003 20:26:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2003 20:26:06 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.22) id 1AKO2D-0004BP-Ay for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:25:45 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AKO1h-0004AQ-B2; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:25:13 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:25:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [65.246.141.36] (helo=mail.reutershealth.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AKO1Q-0004AH-Bq for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:24:56 -0800 Received: from skunk.reutershealth.com (mail [65.246.141.36]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA28485 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:20:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by skunk.reutershealth.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:25:13 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:25:13 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Re: cfari Message-ID: <20031113202513.GF15777@skunk.reutershealth.com> References: <20031112230539.GJ4805@digitalkingdom.org> <20031113150545.26970.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> <20031113194942.GL1086@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031113194942.GL1086@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-archive-position: 6648 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com From: "John Cowan" Reply-To: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=8122456 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 21129 Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > Those of you without time/ability to read the Lojban might might the > topic interesting: xorxes was pointing out four places where I used > a COI cmavo as though it was UI (i.e., without following it with a > name). xorxes expressed his desire for COI cmavo to actually > grammatically be like UI cmavo (which I'm inclined to agree with). Well, UI binds to the previous word. Is that what you were doing? It's certainly grammatical to have COI by itself now, although you need an explicit "do'u" if the next thing is a name or sumti. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)