Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e

From: Pierre Abbat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:50:32 -0500

On Tuesday 30 October 2001 18:54, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> {re lo'e kanla} doesn't make sense, there is only one {lo'e kanla}.

le kanla be lo'e remna are, of course, lo'e zunle kanla and lo'e pritu kanla. 
So, xu lo'e zunle kanla cu me lo'e kanla?

mi'e pier.