From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Feb 05 14:38:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 22:37:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 94314 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 22:37:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 22:37:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 22:37:49 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:37:48 -0800 Received: from 200.41.247.32 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 05 Feb 2001 22:37:48 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.32] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] su'u Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 22:37:48 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2001 22:37:48.0883 (UTC) FILETIME=[44500230:01C08FC4] From: "Jorge Llambias" >From: Robin Lee Powell > >Note that John Cowan replied in the same fashion I did. I really >_sounded_ like you were insisting that the example sentences you >presented were ambiguous. I insisted that they would be ambiguous under xod's proposal, not that they are with the curent grammar. John quoted me completely out of context. This is what I wrote: >la xod cusku di'e > >>No. However, I do not think a single sumti in an abstraction is >>meaningless or ambiguous. > >I don't know about meaningless, but it would be ambiguous. >{le nu mi klama} could mean {(le nu mi) klama} and >{le nu (mi klama}. > >co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.