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 #1) id m0qoco0-00001DC; Sat, 24 Sep 94 22:30 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0378; Sat, 24 Sep 94 22:29:18 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0374; Sat, 24 Sep 1994 22:29:17 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0962; Sat, 24 Sep 1994 21:28:04 +0200 Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 20:29:44 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: query about 'ka' X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Sat, 24 Sep 94 14:36:01 EDT.) Content-Length: 785 Lines: 20 Jorge: > I can't explain, but there was some discussion during Logfest on > this or a very related topic. One proposed solution was to have > a cmavo in selmaho KOhA (say xa'e) so that you'd have {le ka > xa'e nelci do} or {le ka mi nelci xa'e} for the two meanings you > want. This indeed neatly solves the problem. Is it official? > (Something to do with lambda variables, I believe.) There are basically two types of people: geniuses, who understand lambda variables, and the rest of us. (It has been pointed out to me that there is a secondary dichotomy concerning whether one knows which way round to write one's lambdas.) I have long aspired to join the former class, but have always been thwarted in my attempts by a brain that works like an 8086 PC in these areas. ---- And