From pycyn@aol.com Mon Nov 26 14:09:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 26 Nov 2001 22:09:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 79564 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2001 22:09:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Nov 2001 22:09:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m07.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.162) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2001 22:09:16 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id r.bd.17ae0ab8 (4533) for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:09:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:09:14 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] lo'e and NAhEBO To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_bd.17ae0ab8.2934178a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_bd.17ae0ab8.2934178a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/26/2001 10:40:43 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > As to why it doesn't get used, if indeed it doesn't, I can't think of any > good > uses for it in ordinary contexts. Without having checked any texts, I would > guess that actual uses of it may tend to be errors where {na} was meant. > I'm inclined to think that it is more likely that {na} was used mistakenly (or less accurately) for {na'e}, which is a more precise notion (see Cowan's comments on scales). There still won't be a lot of cases, admittedly. --part1_bd.17ae0ab8.2934178a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/26/2001 10:40:43 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


As to why it doesn't get used, if indeed it doesn't, I can't think of any good
uses for it in ordinary contexts. Without having checked any texts, I would
guess that actual uses of it may tend to be errors where {na} was meant.


I'm inclined to think that it is more likely that {na} was used mistakenly (or less accurately) for {na'e}, which is a more precise notion  (see Cowan's comments on scales).  There still won't be a lot of cases, admittedly. --part1_bd.17ae0ab8.2934178a_boundary--