From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Mar 20 09:26:57 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:26:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FLO9N-0000XR-UR for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:26:38 -0800 Received: from web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.125]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FLO9L-0000XI-M7 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:26:37 -0800 Received: (qmail 54679 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Mar 2006 17:26:32 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=C6DWahCcPjBVygLkvd5ChcTJ1e6K5ByIaNTXOyAl2HJnUBtRSWWCAmrecsRhgEl8hsvoyvUVf7e38gQKR5rid0JnwizHGsXwQGTKoqb/oypxwav0bFRD2IlUc/3TgkyArESZGbsRpWfyiX2vHZdy32/Bqfp2gcBg7Ws+EEYXlnM= ; Message-ID: <20060320172632.54677.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.183.14] by web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:26:32 PST Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:26:32 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: semantic primes To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560603200911t1c6a8b2eh3addade8c24d960f@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11182 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Well, you are the one to bring it up. In this case, what solution do you propose? Is {pritu3} opaque? Do you really want to say that {lo broda cu brode} is true even when {no da broda} holds? And, if so, what does {lo broda} mean? As long as you cannot give satisfactory answers to these questions, I am afraid that {lo} will keep coming up, though I like it probably even less than you do. --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 3/20/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > > le bolci cu drani le tricu lo catlu be > le > > > cmana > > > > {pritu} not {drani}, i.e., wrong right. > > Oops!! :) > > > But this > > does not solve the problem since it is either > > false or nonsense in the situation described: > > there is not, ex hypothesi, such a thing as > lo > > catlu be le cmana. > > I pass from getting drawn into a {lo} thread > again, > thank you. We already know we disagree about > that. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to > lojban-list-request@lojban.org > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to > http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to > secretary@lojban.org for help. > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.