From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon May 08 13:51:07 2000
Return-Path: <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
Received: (qmail 4667 invoked from network); 8 May 2000 20:51:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 May 2000 20:51:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.178) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 May 2000 20:51:06 -0000
Received: (qmail 76738 invoked by uid 0); 8 May 2000 20:51:06 -0000
Message-ID: <20000508205106.76737.qmail@hotmail.com>
Received: from 12.128.10.26 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 08 May 2000 13:51:05 PDT
X-Originating-IP: [12.128.10.26]
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Intro and Questions
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 13:51:05 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>

pc:
>xorxes:
><<pc:
> >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. Does it absorb {pu} and {vi} as 
>well?

I don't think that's how it works. You can insert {do}
into {le me zo zo'u} or into {le pa zo zo'u}, but you
cannot insert it into {le zo zo'u} because this is not
a well formed sumti. At least that's how I picture it.
You can't say that {le} absorbs {do} into a new LE,
because in that case the new LE would absorb {zo zo'u}
into yet another LE.

co'o mi'e xorxes

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com