From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Oct 29 09:52:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 29 Oct 2001 17:52:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 61845 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2001 17:52:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Oct 2001 17:52:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.17) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2001 17:52:23 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:52:23 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:52:19 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:52:19 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Oct 2001 17:52:23.0491 (UTC) FILETIME=[76AA1130:01C160A2] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la and cusku di'e >Eh? What am I missing? -- "pa djacu cu du lo djacu" seems wholly true. It's false! It is not the case that one _and only one_ water is equal to at least some water, because every water (and there are more than one), is some water. In fact {ro broda cu du lo broda} for any broda. But I don't think this is what John's objection was about. I am not commenting on the lo'e/le'e construal because I agree with it completely. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp