From araizen@newmail.net Tue Oct 30 13:48:13 2001
Return-Path: <araizen@newmail.net>
X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 30 Oct 2001 21:48:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 82054 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2001 21:48:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Oct 2001 21:48:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO out.newmail.net) (212.150.54.158)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Oct 2001 21:48:12 -0000
Received: from default ([62.0.182.38]) by out.newmail.net ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 22:48:35 +0200
Message-ID: <013a01c161f2$a295f100$26b6003e@default>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
References: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMOEHPEOAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:58:32 -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 .and. cusku di'e

> I gave the example as false statement, in contrast to {re da kanla
> lo'e remna}, which is true.

Really? Which two things? Are they both a "lo'e kanla"? I assume that
the "archetypal" human (or whatever lo'e turns out to mean) must
have "archetypal" eyes. (He certainly can't have real eyes.) But his
two eyes can't be the same "archetypal" eye. Could his two eyes be re
lo'e kanla?

mu'o mi'e .adam.