Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban Re: mei (was Pro-Sumti) In-Reply-To F64iZrAEXCUOGqca...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:33:44 EDT

In a message dated 7/10/2002 3:28:12 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> {le pa le
> >pisu'o loi broda} (we can't just tuck the {pa} inside the first {le} 
> either
> >or we get a supermass).
> 
> And that would be {le su'omei be loi broda}, which in this
> case can be explicitly singularized to {le paboi su'omei
> be loi broda}, avoiding the double selection implied by the
> double {le}.
> >>

{le paboi pisu'o loi broda} also works, avoiding the appearance of a double 
selection, but still getting the right parse.