BPFK Section: Case sumtcita
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 12:58:44PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> Aside from pointlessness, all of these assume without any visible
> justification a certain relationship both with the "corresponding"
> brivla to the BAI and between the resulting sentence and one in
> which that brivla plays a role as a brivla. These connection are
> not supported by the core group of BAI, so suing them to create
> new ones is an innovation which seems bound to lead to the kinbds
> of pointless muddles here shown.
You keep saying "new ones".
There is not a single BAI or BAI* in BPFK consideration that is not
already in the ma'oste; I know this for a fact because that's what I
used to generate the current list.
So, what "new ones" are you talking about?
-Robin