From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 03 18:45:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 4 Aug 2001 01:45:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 15956 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2001 01:45:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Aug 2001 01:45:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Aug 2001 01:45:44 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.57]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010804014543.CEHW20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 02:45:43 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] ce'u (was: vliju'a Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 02:44:25 +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" Xod: > ni'o I recall a while ago I offered an analogy of ka:ce'u::du'u:makau, yet > nobody else thought they were anything alike! But they seem directly > parallel to me. Both are abstractions, and both ce'u and makau focus the > abstraction into a certain place of the abstracted bridi. I see a vague similarity, but recall Jorge's example ko'a ko'e frica le ka ce'u prami ma kau "X differs from Y in who they love" showing that they can sensically cooccur. --And.