From BestATN@aol.com Sun Jul 02 18:03:50 2000
Return-Path: <BestATN@aol.com>
Received: (qmail 1121 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2000 01:03:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Jul 2000 01:03:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo11.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.1) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Jul 2000 01:03:48 -0000
Received: from BestATN@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id h.22.7ead916 (3988) for <lojban@onelist.com>; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 21:03:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <22.7ead916.26914069@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 21:03:37 EDT
Subject: an interesting remark
To: lojban@egroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 109
From: BestATN@aol.com

In a message dated 7/2/2000 04:00:59 Eastern Daylight Time, 
tlhIngan-Hol-digest-help@kli.org writes:

> > > I see exactly the same ambiguity in the suffix {-Daq} and the
> > word "at". I
> > > don't consider it a problem in either language. This isn't Lojban, you
> > know.

I just got a kick out of the Lojban reference and thought others might too.
Steven Lytle