From phma@webjockey.net Fri Jan 18 16:30:41 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 19 Jan 2002 00:30:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 71722 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2002 00:30:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Jan 2002 00:30:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2002 00:30:40 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 3DB5B3C592; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:30:19 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] le ticrai since Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:30:13 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: In-Reply-To: X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0201181930141D.01718@neofelis> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com From: Pierre Abbat Reply-To: phma@webjockey.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300 On Thursday 17 January 2002 12:56, Jorge Llambias wrote: > la pier cusku di'e > > >How about {ko na citka gi'e na pencu .itezu'ebo do na mrobi'o}? > > That's the best so far. I don't know whether the scope of {ko} > extends to a bo-joined bridi or not, and what the claim status > of the second part is, but it does solve the problem with {na}. I have committed it. Does anyone have any suggestions about style? phma