Subject: [lojban] Re: unnecessary "be"

From: "Newton, Philip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 08:41:51 +0100

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. <[email-masked]>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.