From xod@sixgirls.org Sat Aug 04 14:11:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 4 Aug 2001 21:11:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 68205 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2001 21:11:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Aug 2001 21:11:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Aug 2001 21:11:47 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f74LBkc25099 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 17:11:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 17:11:45 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: tu'o (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote: > > I don't see why tu'o would be any stronger than le/lo pa. > > Because tu'o is uninformative, it serves to indicate that the > quantification is a redundant irrelevance. Or so the idea goes. Why does tu'o mean 1 more than it means 0? ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!