From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Wed Nov 06 13:10:22 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 06 Nov 2002 13:10:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root)
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 189XRJ-0007wQ-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 13:10:17 -0800
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gA6LFuiR062555;
	Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:15:56 -0600 (CST)
	(envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com)
Received: (from fracture@localhost)
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gA6LFurj062554;
	Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:15:56 -0600 (CST)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:15:56 -0600
From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Cc: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: So, what about le and da?  (was Re: Re: What the heck is this crap?)
Message-ID: <20021106211556.GA62524@allusion.net>
References: <20021106205839.GK22843@digitalkingdom.org> <200211062116.QAA08985@mail2.reutershealth.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200211062116.QAA08985@mail2.reutershealth.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-archive-position: 2466
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 04:02:41PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>=20
> > "mean essentially the same thing" isn't exactly a strong endorsement.
>=20
> I attempted to avoid strong endorsements, just in case they turned out
> to be strongly wrong.  :-)
>=20
> > Well, that leads to my next question: is the outer quantifier of le
> > veridical (whereas the inner is not)?
>=20
> So I believe; I'm not sure if the book says so.

This means that
	ro le ci broda !=3D ci le ci broda

I think this is a good thing, actually.  I can say "ci" in the inner
and be understood that "ro" of them is what matters, even if there
is "vo".

--=20
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
                                     sei la mark. tuen. cusku

--9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE9yYaMDrrilS51AZ8RAh04AJ94pPntDD4bZby8z9wWfWg42CQROACeMUDs
pfs89gVVH+0xZ/4KIzLFOV4=
=TdGF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR--