From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Jul 20 19:38:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 21 Jul 2001 02:38:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 37744 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2001 02:38:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Jul 2001 02:38:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Jul 2001 02:38:01 -0000 Received: from m8-mp1-cvx2c.bre.ntl.com ([62.253.88.8] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15NmPS-0002QW-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 03:22:27 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: questions about DOI & cmene Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 03:37:05 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Nick: > Quoth And: > > >Yes. Note that all I'm saying is that bridi with lots of omitted or > >zo'e sumti are hard to gloss. (Tho also, as I've said to Michael, I > >think they're overused, making too heavy demands on the interpretive > >powers of the hearer.) > > In addition to which, of course (as And has already pointed out, and as I > myself found in authoring the final lesson), we may be assuming that the > first sumti of a ka-abstraction is what has the ce'u value, but that has > never been stated anywhere even as a guideline, let alone as a rule. > (Well, it has been stated in the lessons now, but only tentatively...) Well, if ever a de facto rule was established by Lojban usage, it's that one. --And.