From araizen@newmail.net Sat Jul 21 16:31:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 21 Jul 2001 23:31:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 74509 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2001 23:31:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Jul 2001 23:31:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n13.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.63) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Jul 2001 23:31:10 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.10.107] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jul 2001 23:31:10 -0000 Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 23:31:10 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: "tofay" (was: RE: [lojban] registry of experimental cmavo Message-ID: <9jd3bu+fqmk@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 379 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.0.182.48 From: "Adam Raizen" la xorxes cusku di'e > I don't have a problem with {cabdei} meaning "that day" in > the appropriate context. {le ca djedi} can also mean that. I don't think so. According to the current definition, "ca" and the rest of PU, ZI, etc. all refer to the speaker's now as the reference point when they don't tag anything. Maybe it should be otherwise, but it's not. mu'o mi'e adam