From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Dec 15 10:56:10 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:56:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GvIE6-0004vj-Eh for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:56:10 -0800 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GvIDz-0004vW-3I for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:56:10 -0800 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c31so1809736nfb for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:55:52 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=IqeDrdHBwZX7uoA2lCWspZpxk8lE9qh6pTUlPjc/oTuxrPtTUjgF/0TnOe4k4KtOaV/CVZ0NpH2lOiS0oJBnZYTVYwlBjiD/ZfifWaO89tA+wW9GB9dyFSWLj7mB4XVQLg2KocJEB09UTjRtphLcpGgTrgdmJf3IK6IvvmSSS4M= Received: by 10.82.111.8 with SMTP id j8mr88161buc.1166208951973; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:55:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.116.6 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:55:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560612151055g42ba595ey6cf6c6000dcd34d8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:55:51 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Quick questions In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20061212222520.40200.qmail@web81415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560612150935s30a3d880i7168e2afc173ff48@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 3846 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On 12/15/06, Matt Arnold wrote: > On the IRC channel, we were recently discussing that. I suggested that > if {pi} is completely universal, then isn't it part of the definition > of {si'e}? And that therefore {pi} never needs to be included because > it would be redundant? {pi} would not be used if you use {fi'u} or {ce'i}: re fi'u ci si'e: "x1 is two thirds of x2" vo no ce'i si'e: "x1 is 40% of x2" And with numbers, {pi mu si'e} is not the same as {pi no mu si'e}, whereas {mu} and {no mu} are the same. It could be said that {pi} is redundant with {su'o}, {so'u}, {so'o}, {so'i}, {so'e}, {so'a}, and {ro}, but not universally. mu'o mi'e xorxes