On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judge pikhq limits it > > Nonambiguous meaning > > Is not the case here > > How is the translation in this case in any way ambiguous?
Or rather I should ask, how is the meaning ambiguous in a way that did not apply equally in the case considered in CFJ 1894? -root
