From araizen@newmail.net Sat Oct 27 17:17:57 2001
Return-Path: <araizen@newmail.net>
X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 28 Oct 2001 00:17:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 19662 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2001 00:17:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27)
  by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Oct 2001 00:17:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO out.newmail.net) (212.150.54.158)
  by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Oct 2001 00:17:53 -0000
Received: from default ([62.0.180.245]) by out.newmail.net ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 02:18:15 +0200
Message-ID: <00ef01c15fac$0748a6e0$dab5003e@default>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
References: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0110270015070.18694-100000@reva.sixgirls.org> <0110271227530F.01291@neofelis> <20011027162600.A643@twcny.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 12:28:19 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen

la rab.spir. cusku di'e

> I think the misuse of {da} to mean "something", without considering
the
> logical implications, is much more dangerous than using the wrong
> article. I'd say about half the time someone says {da} they really
mean
> {zu'i}.

"zu'i" implies "da", doesn't it?

mu'o mi'e .adam.