From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Tue Sep 17 17:39:56 2002
Return-Path: <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 18 Sep 2002 00:39:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 93243 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2002 00:39:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
  by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Sep 2002 00:39:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-7.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.107)
  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Sep 2002 00:39:56 -0000
Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-67-211.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.67.211])
  by mailbox-7.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 666F125B6F
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 02:39:54 +0200 (DST)
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 01:41:31 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMKELPGIAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
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)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <F158OLZCHusMjQHtMFa000002e9@hotmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811
X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin

Xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >I wonder whether,for the benefit of people other than Jorge & pc,
> >Jorge could give us a canonical list of examples using {lo'e}.
> 
> I don't think I could give a canonical list. The examples
> we've been using are things like {nelci lo'e cakla},
> {nitcu lo'e tanxe}, {pixra lo'e sincrboa}, {simsa lo'e sfofa},
> {claxu lo'e rebla}, etc. those are useful, but {lo'e} makes
> sense in any position where {lo} does.

What I was hoping for was a list of exx where there is no obvious
alternative to using lo'e. 

> What do you think of the explanation of {broda lo'e brode}
> in terms of {kairbroda}?

I have to ponder it further.

But my sense is indeed that {lo'e broda cu brode} = {tu'o du'u
ce'u broda ku ckaji zei brode}. But I'm not yet sure whether
the semantic relationship between {brode} and {ckaji zei brode}
is regular, or whether it varies depending on what brode is.

--And.