From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Sep 25 15:39:56 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_2); 25 Sep 2000 22:39:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 21128 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2000 22:39:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 25 Sep 2000 22:39:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.184) by mta3 with SMTP; 25 Sep 2000 22:39:54 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:39:54 -0700 Received: from 200.42.153.65 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:39:54 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.153.65] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Get Much Ca$h ! Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:39:54 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Sep 2000 22:39:54.0167 (UTC) FILETIME=[860C1470:01C02741] From: "Jorge Llambias" >I thought that go'e >repeated an entire 'sentence', but you seem to be saying that it only >repeats the selbri. It repeats the selbri. You can't put {le} in front of an entire sentence. {go'e} is a brivla. Of course, a single selbri can be an entire sentence, and when you use {go'e} by itself as a sentence, the arguments are by default the same arguments as used with the precedent selbri, but that's another matter. >Or are you just using 'le rorci' to refer to the >whole sentence? No, {le go'e} is {le rorci}, the x1 of go'e, in this case the x1 of rorci. What was meant was {le du'u go'e}, or just {di'u} or {de'u} or something like that. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.