From phma@oltronics.net Sun Aug 05 08:11:55 2001
Return-Path: <phma@ixazon.dynip.com>
X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 15:11:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 75038 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 15:11:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 15:11:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (216.189.29.70) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 15:11:47 -0000
Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 265223C5B3; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 11:11:28 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: phma@oltronics.net
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tu'o
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 11:08:22 -0400
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29.2]
Content-Type: text/plain
References: <9kjl4g+bkb4@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <9kjl4g+bkb4@eGroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <01080511112801.28640@neofelis>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@oltronics.net>

On Sun, 05 Aug 2001, jjllambias@hotmail.com wrote:
>I think the counterpart of {zo'e} should be {no'o}, not {tu'o}.
>{tu'o} is the counterpart of {zi'o}. At least that's what "used 
>in unary operations" suggests to me.

{no'o} seems to correspond to {zu'i}, not {zo'e}, to me. {tu'o} corresponds to
{zo'e} when used in a sumti and to {zo'e} or {zi'o}, depending on the
operation, when used in a mex.

phma