From rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Mon Sep 25 15:58:38 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_2); 25 Sep 2000 22:58:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 6974 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2000 22:58:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 25 Sep 2000 22:58:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) (129.97.134.11) by mta1 with SMTP; 25 Sep 2000 22:58:38 -0000 Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA05693 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:01:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009252301.TAA05693@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Get Much Ca$h ! In-Reply-To: Message from "Jorge Llambias" of "Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:39:54 GMT." Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:01:21 -0400 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell "Jorge Llambias" writes: >>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. go'e GOhA penultimate bridi pro-bridi: repeats the next to last bridi That seems to contradict you. What am I missing? >>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. OK. -Robin -- http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. Despite not getting very emotional about it, the fact that quantum entanglement doesn't allow transmission of information is probably the most profound dissapointment I've ever experienced. -- RLPowell