From pycyn@aol.com Fri Oct 11 17:07:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 12 Oct 2002 00:07:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 13206 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2002 00:07:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Oct 2002 00:07:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m07.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.162) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Oct 2002 00:07:37 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.146.368a73 (2612) for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2002 20:07:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <146.368a73.2ad8c1c4@aol.com> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 20:07:32 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Why kez? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_146.368a73.2ad8c1c4_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_146.368a73.2ad8c1c4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/11/2002 6:12:03 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << > How come {kei} has a rafsi (kez)? > >> Is the question Why this particular form of rafsi? or Why a rafsi for kei at all? I suppose the answer to the first is"because it doesn't interfere with anything else yet is close to the full form." I haven't a clue about the second, since I can't imagine actually using it in a lujvo --even if {kei} were used in the underlying tanru. --part1_146.368a73.2ad8c1c4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/11/2002 6:12:03 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:

<<
How come {kei} has a rafsi (kez)?
>>
Is the question Why this particular form of rafsi? or Why a rafsi for kei at all?
I suppose the answer to the first is"because it doesn't interfere with anything else yet is close to the full form." I haven't a clue about the second, since I can't imagine actually using it in a lujvo --even if {kei} were used in the underlying tanru.

 --part1_146.368a73.2ad8c1c4_boundary--