From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Oct 01 19:13:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 2 Oct 2001 02:13:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 64044 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 02:13:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.222 with QMQP; 2 Oct 2001 02:13:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.223) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 02:13:10 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 19:13:10 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.203 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 02 Oct 2001 02:13:09 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.203] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 02:13:09 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Oct 2001 02:13:10.0029 (UTC) FILETIME=[C83AEBD0:01C14AE7] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >Well, no one has used it yet, so it can't exactly be thrown out, not yet >being in. How can you be so sure? I found this in usasge from October '97: >>i pe'i zo valsi zo vlile cu rimni fo le ka makau pamoi >>le ba'usle porsi pe ce'u from: http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9710/msg00318.html I can't be sure that I have used it anywhere else, but I would never have doubted that that was how {ce'u} should be used. >But moe to the point, we have a perfectly good way of saying it, >so it is not lost -- and we gain a new thing we did not have before. We lose afterthought flexibility, if we must put ce'u in the prenex in these occasions. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp