From cowan@ccil.org Sun Nov 25 22:39:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 26 Nov 2001 06:39:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 81967 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2001 06:39:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Nov 2001 06:39:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2001 06:39:47 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 168FQw-0006v2-00 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 01:40:02 -0500 Subject: Re: [lojban] lo'e and NAhEBO In-Reply-To: <000d01c175e3$9cf34860$ea32ca3e@oemcomputer> from "G. Dyke" at "Nov 25, 2001 08:00:55 pm" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 01:40:02 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Profile: johnwcowan G. Dyke scripsit: > My second question: why is it that the refgram makes a big deal of NAhEBO > (It certainly made a big impression on me) but it is almost never used. Am I > wrong in thinking that na'ebo le broda is the same as le na'e broda? Well, it's not that useful with descriptions, as you note, but with other sumti, it can be quite handy: A: ma catra le -sheriff B: na'ebo mi -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan