From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Jul 25 20:09:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 26 Jul 2001 03:09:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 58196 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2001 03:09:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Jul 2001 03:09:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.44) by mta2 with SMTP; 26 Jul 2001 03:09:29 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:09:26 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.19 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 03:09:26 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.19] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Another classic Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 03:09:26 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2001 03:09:26.0277 (UTC) FILETIME=[608A7B50:01C11580] From: "Jorge Llambias" la nitcion cusku di'e >*Properly*, of course, di'u refers to the entire sentence, and the actual >referent here is only the embedded clause (le jai mu'i go'i!) I would >allow la'e di'u some latitude in interpretation, but if di'u doesn't mean >the >entire sentence, then we've been mislead. It doesn't necessarily mean the entire sentence, but you're right that we had been misled at some point. Now the Book has set the record straight, it's on page 149: "[...] the amount of speech or written text referred to by any of these words [di'u et al] is vague". mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp