From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Aug 05 07:00:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 14:00:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 82089 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 14:00:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 14:00:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.43) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 14:00:56 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 07:00:56 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.40 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 05 Aug 2001 14:00:56 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.40] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 14:00:56 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2001 14:00:56.0406 (UTC) FILETIME=[0C344F60:01C11DB7] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >Excellent point: yes, there is a risk of gardenpathing. In a sense, if >we can get away with "du'u ... Q-kau", then we should be able to get >away with "du'u ... ce'u" and dispense with ka. OTOH, if we need ka >to forewarn us of the presence of a ce'u, then we need a new abstractor >to forewarn us of the presence of Q-kau. The obvious candidate is {jei}, it already means {du'u xukau}. However, I don't remember ever being gardenpathed by "du'u...Q-kau". mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp