From pycyn@aol.com Sat Jun 17 02:01:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29982 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2000 09:01:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Jun 2000 09:01:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d02.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.34) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Jun 2000 09:01:07 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.75.59318f3 (4586) for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 05:01:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <75.59318f3.267c984f@aol.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 05:01:03 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] bacrynandu To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com In a message dated 00-06-16 18:08:13 EDT, MAIKL writes: << li'a mi le skami pemi pu ckasu skicu fole cilmo noi jitfa >> Well, obviously NOT clearly, especially on the matter of WHAT you were describing. The only contextually available subject was the previous quote (the assumed subject of your previous sentence) and {mi}, the habitual subject of your lb comments (a larger context, to be sure). And. of course, you are a wet computer, among other things (you seem to get caught up in being an example, also -- weren't you an event a couple weeks ago?) If you want to bring your computer in, I fear you have to be a bit more explicit, e.g., {lemi skami cu cilmo}, almost as compact -- and genuinely clear -- including that it is hyperbole, and funny.