RE: [jboske] la, lai, me

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

pc:
> a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:
> . JCB had it right 
> > originally and it was foolish (not to mention superfluous) to have 
> > changed it. {me} should be the brivla relativized in {pe}, as intended.
> > 
> > (Maybe I should quit bitching and just invent a new -- longer -- 
> > cmavo for the purpose:
> > {pe'e'e} sounds to me like "posesses" (with a bad lisp) 
> 
> In this particular instance, though, we don't need a cmavo -- a
> lujvo would do. (Same goes for my construal of {me}, too.)
> 
> >>
> 
> Namely?

For some reason mail in the last couple of days has been badly out of
sync (at least when it reaches me). I had just sent a message 
outlining my construal of {me}, in terms of haecceities/seities
and quiddities. I won't repeat it, because I presume it will turn
up somewhere down the line.

--And.