From jcowan@reutershealth.com Mon May 08 09:13:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19195 invoked from network); 8 May 2000 16:12:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 May 2000 16:12:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (204.243.9.36) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 May 2000 16:12:46 -0000 Received: from reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@skunk.reutershealth.com [204.243.9.153]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA03882 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 12:12:42 -0400 (EDT) Sender: cowan@mail.reutershealth.com Message-ID: <3916E74C.F532A37C@reutershealth.com> Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 12:11:56 -0400 Organization: Reuters Health Information X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "lojban@onelist.com" Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Intro and Questions References: <78.4f48a9b.26484049@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan pycyn@aol.com wrote: > >you might even be allowed {le do zo zo'u}). > > It doesn't parse. You can make it {le do me zo zo'u}, > or, weird but possible, {le do pa zo zo'u}.>> > > Thanks. I can't get this rule straight. I suppose that the problem here is > that {le} absorbs {do} into a new LE. The straightforward way is zo zo'u pe do, though. "Le do " is just a concise way of saying "le pe do". > Does it absorb {pu} and {vi} as well? No. Those have to have a selbri following. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)