From xod@sixgirls.org Sun Nov 25 23:02:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 26 Nov 2001 07:02:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 86829 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2001 07:02:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Nov 2001 07:02:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (216.27.131.50) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2001 07:02:04 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fAQ724V04845 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 02:02:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 02:02:03 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] lo'e and NAhEBO In-Reply-To: <000d01c175e3$9cf34860$ea32ca3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, G. Dyke wrote: > 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. It's been used a few times on this mailing list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/messagesearch?query=na%27ebo And around the world: http://www.google.com/search?q=na%27ebo -- The tao that can be tar(1)ed is not the entire Tao. The path that can be specified is not the Full Path.