From phma@webjockey.net Mon Jan 06 05:58:48 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 13:58:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 21281 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2003 13:58:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Jan 2003 13:58:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Jan 2003 13:58:47 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18VXmB-00032D-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 05:58:47 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18VXm5-00031u-00; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 05:58:41 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 06 Jan 2003 05:58:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from 208-150-110-21-adsl.precisionet.net ([208.150.110.21] helo=blackcat.ixazon.lan) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18VXlz-00031l-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 05:58:35 -0800 Received: by blackcat.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 06F9F24DB; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 13:58:04 +0000 (UTC) Organization: dis To: "'lojban-list@lojban.org'" Subject: [lojban] Re: unnecessary "be" Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 08:58:04 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200301060858.04539.phma@webjockey.net> X-archive-position: 3711 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Pierre Abbat Reply-To: phma@webjockey.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300 On Monday 06 January 2003 02:41, Newton, Philip wrote: > steven lytle wrote: > > 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}. {be} is allowed, it's just not necessary. phma