Return-Path: Message-Id: <9201202109.AA16698@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 16:05:57 EST Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: la X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: David Cortesi's message of Fri, 17 Jan 1992 17:31:50 TZONE Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 20 17:56:33 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 17:31:50 TZONE Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was cortesi@CRICKHOLLOW.INFORMIX.COM From: David Cortesi X-To: lojban mailing list Mark Shoulson corrects me: *la ty cannot be proper grammar. However... [ grammar stuff deleted ] So at least: la ga'e ty moi == "that which I call T'th" I don't think the "li" route is clear but I don't have time to check it... Yes, that'd work, but think about it. It really doesn't seem to be what you want. Would you go around calling the number one "that which I call the first"? "moi" is probably the wrong word, you'd do better with "mei", and eve that stinks. The more I think about it, the more I consider that the best route is simply "li ty". See, that's the value T, just like "li ci" is the value 3 or "li ny" is the value N. "li" converts letteral-strings to sumti, which is what you want here. Just as "li pa su'i pa du li re" (1+1=2), we have "li ty .e ty du li ty" (T and T = T) (I may be misusing .e as logical AND). ~mark o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o N2KOT Mark E. Shoulson: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu