From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Aug 07 16:04:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 7 Aug 2001 23:04:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 1274 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2001 23:04:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Aug 2001 23:04:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.87) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Aug 2001 23:04:53 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:04:53 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.30 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 07 Aug 2001 23:04:53 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.30] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 23:04:53 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2001 23:04:53.0637 (UTC) FILETIME=[5E560B50:01C11F95] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e > > le nu xokau prenu cu zvati cu spaji mi > >But I'm a bit uncomfortable with that "nu xokau". The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that {kau} is totally independent of the abstraction it is embedded in. Xod was right after all: "the answer" is just the sumti. But we were all wrong about the question. It is not the whole bridi containing {ma}. The question is just {ma}. So {makau} simply stands for the relevant answer to {ma}, whatever the context is, be it du'u, ka, or an appropriate attitudinal. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp