From Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de Sun Jan 05 23:43:08 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Jan 2003 07:43:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 26491 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2003 07:43:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Jan 2003 07:43:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Jan 2003 07:43:07 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18VRud-0008Lb-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:43:07 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18VRuE-0008LI-00; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:42:42 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:42:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw6.gedas.de ([139.1.44.12] helo=spree.gedas.de) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18VRu6-0008L9-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:42:35 -0800 Received: from spree.gedas.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spree.gedas.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22107 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 08:42:00 +0100 (MET) Received: from blnsem05.de.gedas.vwg (blnsem05.gedas.de [139.1.84.49]) by spree.gedas.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22101 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 08:41:59 +0100 (MET) Received: by blnsem05.de.gedas.vwg with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 08:41:59 +0100 Message-ID: To: "'lojban-list@lojban.org'" Subject: [lojban] Re: unnecessary "be" Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 08:41:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-archive-position: 3710 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "Newton, Philip" Reply-To: Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=23036112 X-Yahoo-Profile: elder_newton steven lytle wrote: > > In a message dated 2003-01-03 9:31:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, > la filip cusku di'e: > > > {mi du lo nanmu poi pu te xatra be do} sounds wrong again -- > > and {mi nanmu gi'e pu te xatra be do} sounds more like > > a {noi} connection than a {poi} one to me. Maybe {mi du pa > > le ro nanmu poi pu te xatra be do} or something? > > if there's no LE, there should be no BE. right? > > {mi pu te xatra be do} should be just {mi pu te xatra do}. > {mi nanmu gi'e pu te xatra be do} > {mi nanmu gi'e pu te xatra do}. I think you're right. Thanks; the {be} was probably carried over from when there *was* a {le}. fe'omi'e filip. -- filip.niutyn. All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.