From sentto-44114-17030-1036711522-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Thu Nov 07 15:25:59 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:25:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from n36.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.104]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 189w25-0004gM-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:25:53 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-17030-1036711522-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.95] by n36.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Nov 2002 23:25:23 -0000 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: Message-ID: 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-Profile: andjamin 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, 7 Nov 2002 23:27:07 -0000 Subject: [lojban] Re: importing ro Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 2504 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 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. To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/