From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Feb 04 10:45:59 2001
Return-Path: <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 18:45:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 54816 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 18:45:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 18:45:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO c3.egroups.com) (10.1.10.50) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 18:45:54 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
Received: from [10.1.2.95] by c3.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2001 18:45:54 -0000
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 18:45:53 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: the use of {me}
Message-ID: <95k811+6h8t@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 553
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79
From: "A.W.T." <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>

I'm not too sure from the Book about the use of lb {me} for creating selbri out of sumti.
1) changing prosumti to selbri: this is clear, e.g. {do na me mi}
2) altering cmene to selbri too: e.g. {ti me la .alis.}
3) but does it work also with descriptive sumti e.g., {ti me le gerku} ??
I think it should, for there's a difference between:
a) {ti gerku} (This is a dog.) and 
b) {ti me le gerku...} (This is the dog...), e.g. {ti me le gerku poi pu batci mi}
otherwise one had to use constructions like {ti poi gerku pu batci mi}.

co'o mi'e la .aulun.