Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0p5hZW-0000PbC; Fri, 3 Dec 93 22:57 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 8422; Fri, 03 Dec 93 22:58:02 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8420; Fri, 3 Dec 1993 22:57:53 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5114; Fri, 3 Dec 1993 21:56:57 +0100 Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 15:32:17 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: your mail X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199312031647.AA14462@access.digex.net> from "Dr. C.D. Wright" at Dec 3, 93 04:35:59 pm Content-Length: 698 Lines: 14 C.D. Wright asks about the inconsistency between PU and ZAhO. Yes, they are inconsistent. I sweated blood trying to make them both consistent and usable, and finally had to sacrifice consistency. Sorry about that. They have different historical origins within the Loglan Project, and get used in different ways. In particular, sumti tcita ZAhO is anomalous, because ZAhO -- like ZEhA, VIhA, VEhA, etc. -- basically expresses a property (1-place) rather than a relation (2-place), but it is very convenient as a sumti tcita and we allow it as such with anomalous semantics. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.