From ragnarok@pobox.com Mon Jan 14 15:05:07 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 14 Jan 2002 23:05:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 98437 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2002 23:05:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Jan 2002 23:05:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2002 23:05:07 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A40B25D500AA; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:04:43 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] po'u considered harmful Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:05:05 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >>I should also add, for completeness, that when giving that conference >>paper Bab could licitly say "mi no'u la bab e la djan" to refer to them >>both. >That requires that la bab du la djan. (If mi du la bab & mi du la djan, >then by transitivity...) He should say {mi no'u la bab joi la djan}. And this is the exact sort of problem that can arise from not realizing that 'po'u' and 'no'u' contain a 'du'. I have not said that all examples of po'u are harmful, just that it can be harmful in the wrong context.