From sentto-44114-17022-1036703296-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Thu Nov 07 15:03:59 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:03:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from n22.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.78]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 189vgq-0000hy-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:03:56 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-17022-1036703296-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.96] by n22.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Nov 2002 21:08:16 -0000 X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 7 Nov 2002 21:08:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 27719 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2002 21:08:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Nov 2002 21:08:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2002 21:08:15 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:08:15 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:08:14 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2002 21:08:15.0241 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9BF4F90:01C286A1] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:08:14 +0000 Subject: [lojban] Re: importing ro Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 2502 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list 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. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/jd3IAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/