From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Jun 23 08:51:09 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 23 Jun 2001 15:51:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 19896 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2001 15:51:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Jun 2001 15:51:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.158) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Jun 2001 15:51:09 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 08:51:08 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.39 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 15:51:08 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.39] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Help!! learning Lojban Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 15:51:08 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jun 2001 15:51:08.0984 (UTC) FILETIME=[51D86380:01C0FBFC] From: "Jorge Llambias" la aulun cusku di'e >Exact - and this should have been pointed to since long, since AFAIK >{bu'u= >} never ever appeared to be used in this sense in favour of >idiomatical(?) {vi}! Why? I believe it was inherited from Loglan, that didn't (doesn't?) have an equivalent of {bu'u}. >Anyway, I think it often would be much more lojbanic to use {bu'u} >instead.= I agree, and I do use it. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.