From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Oct 31 05:39:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 31 Oct 2001 13:39:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 86275 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2001 13:38:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Oct 2001 13:38:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Oct 2001 13:38:41 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:15:11 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:49:41 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:49:34 +0000 To: jjllambias , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin >>> Jorge Llambias 10/30/01 11:54pm >>> #Could {zo'e} be defined perhaps as {lo'e du}? Surely lo'e du treats everything as one single Mr Everything. That seems to me to be more like da than zo'e. Well, on second thoughts, it could work to *define* zo'e as lo'e du, and then acknowledge that pragmatically this may lead to an interpretation where lo'e du/zo'e is taken as a referen= ce to your maternal grandfathers left knee, but at any rate I would not acc= ept that zo'e as it is currently officially defined is equivalent to lo'e d= u. --And.