From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Sep 21 10:30:31 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 21 Sep 2002 17:30:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 44749 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2002 17:30:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Sep 2002 17:30:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.220) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Sep 2002 17:30:31 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 10:30:31 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.18 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 17:30:30 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] tu'o usage Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 17:30:30 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Sep 2002 17:30:31.0318 (UTC) FILETIME=[95A09B60:01C26194] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.18] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e ><< >Anyway, even with nonimporting ro, I don't see how {pa lo su'o} >differs from {pa lo ro}. > >> >My point was exactly: there isn't any any more, once the situation was >clarified. There never was a difference between {pa lo su'o} and {pa lo ro}, so "any more" does not apply. There is a difference between {ro lo su'o} and {ro lo ro} under nonimporting {ro}, but this has not come up in the present discussion. {ro lo ro pavyseljirna cu blabi} is true (in worlds with no unicorns) with nonimporting {ro}, but false with importing {ro}. {ro lo su'o pavyseljirna cu blabi} is false (in worlds with no unicorns) both for importing and nonimporting {ro}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx