From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Thu Nov 07 15:25:51 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:25:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mrin01.spray.se ([212.78.193.7] helo=mrin01.st1.spray.net)
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 189w1z-0004gG-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:25:47 -0800
Received: from lmin01.st1.spray.net (lmin01.st1.spray.net [212.78.202.101])
	by mrin01.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D21A1C62D8
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Fri,  8 Nov 2002 00:25:13 +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 0868D1D42A
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Fri,  8 Nov 2002 00:25:12 +0100 (MET)
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban] Re: importing ro
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:27:03 -0000
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMOEHFGNAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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: <20021107184244.GC22843@digitalkingdom.org>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
X-archive-position: 2503
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

Robin:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 02:35:20PM +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > If we settle on the latter option -- the one without restriction on
> > quantifier range & with implicit rewriting to ganai-gi.ge-gi -- then
> > most of the dispute goes away, and we end up with the position that is
> > preferred by everybody who has indicated their preferences -- me,
> > xorxes, Adam, Jordan, & probably others 
> > 
> > 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 
> 
> I'm not ready to throw down on this yet; while I do, believe it or not,
> have the formal training to do so, it's been a while and following this
> discussion has been hard for me 

Of course I believe it! You do clever things with computers, and, what's
more, you taught yourself Lojban...
 
> It would help me if someone would describe the other alternative in the
> format above 

Well I had misunderstood pc, so the actual other alternative is as
explained in Jorge's reply to you.

What I had meant by the other alternative was:

     ro broda cu brode 
   = ro da poi broda cu brode

but these do not mean

     ro da ga na broda gi brode

I had forgotten that pc rejected the first equation, and thought he
was offering a position that allows for us to reach a happy
consensus.

--And.