RE: [jboske] RE: lo'ie != lo'ei

From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@hidden.email>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 20:46:00 -0500
Subject: RE: [jboske] RE: lo'ie != lo'ei
To: jboske@yahoogroups.com

At 08:34 PM 12/21/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:

As things stand,
I find the inclusion of la'e and lu'e in LAhE to be rather unfortunate,
except for la'e+zo/dei/etc.

LAHE as a selma'o is purely a grammatical maneuver. LAhE + sumti +terminator transforms into (points to) a different sumti.


lojbab

--
lojbab                                             lojbab@hidden.email
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [jboske] RE: lo'ie != lo'ei
  - From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@hidden.email>

References:
- Re: [jboske] RE: lo'ie != lo'ei
  - From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@hidden.email>
- RE: [jboske] RE: lo'ie != lo'ei
  - From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@hidden.email>

Prev by Date: Re: [jboske] job of BF (was: RE: individuation and masses
Next by Date: RE: [jboske] Can't keep away
Previous by thread: RE: [jboske] RE: lo'ie != lo'ei
Next by thread: RE: [jboske] RE: lo'ie != lo'ei
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread