From pycyn@aol.com Mon Jul 08 06:20:41 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 8 Jul 2002 13:20:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 39573 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2002 13:20:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Jul 2002 13:20:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.161) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 2002 13:20:40 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.21.) id r.11a.137893ae (4585) for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:20:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <11a.137893ae.2a5aeb9a@aol.com> Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:20:26 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban Re: mei (was Pro-Sumti) In-Reply-To 1b9.2d2c53f.2a5a39a To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_11a.137893ae.2a5aeb9a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_11a.137893ae.2a5aeb9a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/7/2002 7:41:41 PM Central Daylight Time, pycyn@aol.com writes: > << > >I admit that {le cimei} may be different because I > >can't see any disaster happening if it is -- yet. > > And what disaster happens if {joi} is equivalent to {piro loi}? > >> > > I meant {loi} instead of {lei} in the first line > >> I'm not sure what happened here. The answer -- whatever it was -- got lost and a piece of another answer was inserted here again. Weird. I think I let it slide, since I had dealt with it in the paragraph above, and several times before. --part1_11a.137893ae.2a5aeb9a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/7/2002 7:41:41 PM Central Daylight Time, pycyn@aol.com writes:


<<
>I admit that {le cimei} may be different because I
>can't see any disaster happening if it is -- yet.

And what disaster happens if {joi} is equivalent to {piro loi}?
>>

I meant {loi} instead of {lei} in the first line
>>

I'm not sure what happened here.  The answer -- whatever it was -- got lost and a piece of another answer was inserted here again.  Weird.

I think I let it slide, since I had dealt with it in the paragraph above, and several times before. --part1_11a.137893ae.2a5aeb9a_boundary--