[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[lojban] Re: unnecessary "be"

On Monday 06 January 2003 02:41, Newton, Philip wrote:
> steven lytle wrote:
> > 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}.
>
> I think you're right. Thanks; the {be} was probably carried over from when
> there *was* a {le}.

{be} is allowed, it's just not necessary.

phma