From pycyn@aol.com Mon Aug 20 08:58:31 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 20 Aug 2001 15:58:31 -0000
Received: (qmail 14179 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2001 15:57:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142)
  by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Aug 2001 15:57:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.98)
  by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Aug 2001 15:57:22 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.140.314721 (4322)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:57:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <140.314721.28b28d5b@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:57:15 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] Toward a {ce'u} record
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_140.314721.28b28d5b_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531
From: pycyn@aol.com

--part1_140.314721.28b28d5b_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

All of the options mentioned assume that {ka} and {du'u} remain separate. 
Should they be combined, then only option 1 (all {ce'u} in place) remains, 
since the general rule for dropping {zo'e} takes precidence. It would be 
possible to work out some way to drop some {ce'u} perhaps, but hardly seems 
worthwhile. 
I oppose the collapse of {ka} and {du'u}, not only for this reason but also 
to maintain the useful practical distinctions between them, however 
theorretically unifed they are.

--part1_140.314721.28b28d5b_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=2>All of the options mentioned assume that {ka} and {du'u} remain separate. &nbsp;
<BR>Should they be combined, then only option 1 (all {ce'u} in place) remains, 
<BR>since the general rule for dropping {zo'e} takes precidence. &nbsp;It would be 
<BR>possible to work out some way to drop some {ce'u} perhaps, but hardly seems 
<BR>worthwhile. &nbsp;
<BR>I oppose the collapse of {ka} and {du'u}, not only for this reason but also 
<BR>to maintain the useful practical distinctions between them, however 
<BR>theorretically unifed they are.</FONT></HTML>

--part1_140.314721.28b28d5b_boundary--

