[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [jboske] Re: [lojban] tautologies

On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote:

> la xod cusku di'e
> >mi puza cilre bai noda .i ji'a mi puzi speni bai noda .i ji'a mi ca'o bai
> >gunka
> No, even in that context I can't interpret it as {bai noda}.
> It's always {bai zo'e}, and {zo'e} can't be {noda}.

Not even if noda is the commonly understood value? I believe your fi'o
rebla is zo'e; it's noda.

> > > As for x4, you just put {li pa} there, which suggests that
> > > you are also using it for the value in the range. Something
> > > like "the function called x1 maps x2 (a value in the range)
> > > to x3=x4 (a value in the domain)". Unless you meant to use
> > > {li pa} not to refer to the number 1, but rather to the
> > > function that maps any value of the range to the number 1.
> >
> >Yes, that's how lipa should be interpreted when in the le velfancu place.
> I see, but that's not how I understand the language. {li pa}
> for me is the number 1, not a function that takes the number
> 1 as a value.

I never said that it took the number 1 as a value, but the converse: it
always spits out "1".

The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.