From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Fri Nov 08 09:48:14 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:48:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18ADEo-0005c1-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:48:10 -0800 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:48:10 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: importing ro Message-ID: <20021108174810.GE22931@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20021108004315.GC22931@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 2541 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 05:30:28PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > In practise, the current choice comes down to whether you want {ro > broda cu brode} to mean the same thing as {ro broda ga na broda gi > brode}. It really is up to us to choose; neither choice is > intrinsically right or wrong. Before it was whether {ro broda cu brode} meant the same as {ro da ga na broda gi brode}. I see those as rather different. In particular, {ro broda ga na broda gi brode}, which is true if pa broda cu na broda, which I don't like. 8) That *was* an error, right? -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ http://www.lojban.org/ la lojban. jai curmi roda .einai to ku'i so'ada mukti le nu co'a darlu le'o -- RLP I'm a *male* Robin.