From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Aug 24 17:29:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 25 Aug 2001 00:29:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 56148 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2001 00:29:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 25 Aug 2001 00:29:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.119) by mta2 with SMTP; 25 Aug 2001 00:29:26 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:29:26 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.38 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 00:29:26 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.38] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: mine, thine, hisn, hern, itsn ourn, yourn and theirn (was[lojban] si'o) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 00:29:26 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Aug 2001 00:29:26.0347 (UTC) FILETIME=[FEEDE9B0:01C12CFC] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >Aside from being ill-formed, how does this work? It is not ill-formed. It is perfectly grammatical. {me moi} is a separate construction from { }. I can't think of any better use for it than the original meaning of {me} as you present it. If there are competing interpretations, let's have them, but don't lambast mine just for the sake of it. >There are gereat piles of MEX, for example, that we >never use; maybe that is where all the {ka} and {du'u} solutions really >are. I hope not. MEX selmaho are near the top in my "Thou shalt not use" list (I'll have to put it up on the wiki one of these days). mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp