From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Aug 23 07:18:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 23 Aug 2001 14:18:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 55056 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2001 14:15:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Aug 2001 14:15:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.168) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Aug 2001 14:15:29 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 07:15:29 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:15:29 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:15:29 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Aug 2001 14:15:29.0765 (UTC) FILETIME=[1033D150:01C12BDE] From: "Jorge Llambias" I like it! That would also explain what the heck {si'o} means, which I never really understood. My only minor qualm is with this: >5. In ka abstractions that contain no overt ce'u, exactly one elided sumti >is interpreted as ce'u and the rest are interpreted as zo'e. I would also temper it down here to "exactly one unless overridden by strong contextual factors", basically to cover the x2 of simxu. I still want to be able to say {simxu le ka darxi} for example. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp