From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Thu Nov 07 15:25:22 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 7 Nov 2002 23:25:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 86836 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2002 23:25:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Nov 2002 23:25:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mrin01.st1.spray.net) (212.78.193.7) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2002 23:25:22 -0000 Received: from lmin01.st1.spray.net (lmin01.st1.spray.net [212.78.202.101]) by mrin01.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 152CF1E08F0 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 00:25:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-236.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.236]) by lmin01.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23F381D44D for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 00:25:16 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: importing ro Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:27:07 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jorge: > la and cusku di'e > > >It seems to me that we might all be able to agree on this for once and > >for all: > > > >1. Contrary to what Woldy says, > > ro broda cu brode > > = ro da poi broda cu brode > > = ro da ga na broda gi brode > >This would require a correction to 16.8 or wherever it is that Woldy says > >these mean different things > > > >2. The universe is not empty > > > >If we can agree on these two things -- & nobody has spoken out against > >either of them -- then won't that allow this debate to evaporate into > >irrelevance and inconsequentiality? > > 2 is not really needed for either position. 1 is our position, > but pc has always spoken out against it. He does not approve > of {ro broda cu brode = ro da ga na broda gi brode}, and I am > convinced we will never reach an agreement about this > > I once offered a salomonic compromise: leave the importingness > of ro/no/su'o/me'i[ro] ambiguous, and use roma'u/noma'u/su'oma'u > /me'ima'u for the importing quantifiers and roni'u/noni'u/ > su'oni'u/me'ini'u for the non-importing ones when you want > to emphasize the distinction. This means that everyone gets to > use their favourite importingness unmarked, and whenever there > is a possibility of confusion (hardly ever) there is always > the possibility of being precise either way Do ma'u and ni'u here have the status of mere diacritics, serving to distinguish the two kinds of ro? I think it's better to go with ro & ro'o'o, to spare everyone who wants to be precise the effort of having to add the ni'u or the ma'u. --And.