From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Feb 04 15:58:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 23:58:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 82274 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 23:58:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 23:58:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.140) by mta2 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 23:58:21 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 15:58:20 -0800 Received: from 200.41.247.34 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 04 Feb 2001 23:58:20 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.34] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] su'u Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 23:58:20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Feb 2001 23:58:20.0857 (UTC) FILETIME=[59FAFA90:01C08F06] From: "Jorge Llambias" >From: Robin Lee Powell > >So you're saying that 'do catlu be le nu mi klama' is _not_ ambiguous as >the grammar stands, and that 'le nu {sumti}' is illegal to make sure >that it's not ambiguous? Exactly. >If so, you're agreeing with me, as _I_ was the one who pointed out the >'le nu {sumti}' was bad. 8) Of course. That's why I was baffled when you objected to my reply to xod. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.