From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sun Sep 23 07:10:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 23 Sep 2001 14:09:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 82503 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2001 14:09:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 23 Sep 2001 14:09:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Sep 2001 14:10:25 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.89.117]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010923141024.TXHO20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 23 Sep 2001 15:10:24 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 15:09:39 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" pc: > Sorry, even without me this won't fly the way you want: {ce'u} is > minimal scope, so doesn't go beyond {le mamta be...} anyhow. For > this you need {le ka ce'u goi cy zo'u > le mamta be cy ...}. So my interpretation of {le mamta be ce'u} > isn't your problem. (See And's discussion of the scope of {ce'u} a > few days ago) I haven't really been keeping up with this thread, partly because I'm short of time and partly because on skimming it Jorge seems to be saying everything I would wish said (so consider my voice to be being implicitly added as an echo of Jorge's). But I just want to chime in here to point out that I said that ce'u belongs to the localmost bridi, and since {le mamta be ce'u} is not a bridi, the ce'u is not 'confined' to that phrase; the ce'u belongs to the bridi in which {le mamta be ce'u} is a sumti. --And.