From phma@oltronics.net Thu Nov 16 13:07:24 2000
Return-Path: <phma@oltronics.net>
X-Sender: phma@oltronics.net
X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 16 Nov 2000 21:07:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 8137 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2000 21:07:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Nov 2000 21:07:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.oltronics.net) (204.213.85.8) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Nov 2000 21:07:23 -0000
Received: from neofelis (root@localhost) by mail.oltronics.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA10523 for <lojban@egroups.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 17:36:13 -0500
X-BlackMail: 207.15.133.10, neofelis, <phma@oltronics.net>, 207.15.133.10
X-Authenticated-Timestamp: 17:36:13(EST) on November 16, 2000
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: missing cmavo [was: Re: [lojban] abstraction focus
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:06:00 -0500
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29.2]
Content-Type: text/plain
References: <F112evWWGxegIqunLOy000012a9@hotmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <F112evWWGxegIqunLOy000012a9@hotmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <0011161607190X.20128@neofelis>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@oltronics.net>

On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, michael helsem wrote:
>also ZI'A & ZI'U can be inferred from ZI'E (compound relative
>clause connectors).

If that were so, then {zi'o} would also be a compound relative clause
connector, which it isn't.

phma

