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 m0r1ewD-00006yC; Sun, 30 Oct 94 20:25 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2367; Sun, 30 Oct 94 20:25:18 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2362; Sun, 30 Oct 1994 20:25:17 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4555; Sun, 30 Oct 1994 19:22:09 +0100 Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 11:24:05 -0700 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: any, opaque, transparent, xe'e... X-To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1208 Lines: 26 >What is it that you are calling Lojbab's scheme? Use of {tu'a}, or use of >{lo tanxe} for these predicates with a different meaning than for most >other predicates? I think a post of mine got lost somehow, which I'll quote from: >T=transparent, O=opaque, V=veridicial, NV=non-veridical > > Jorge's system Lojbab's system > -------------- --------------- >T/V lo broda da poi broda >T/NV le broda le broda >O/V xe'e lo broda OR (.ai/ko + lo) lo broda >O/NV xe'e le broda OR (.ai/ko + le) ?? I went on to point out that in my lojban writing I was noticing a correlation between veridicial and opaque, which was causing me to lean more towards Lojbab's system, for Zipfean reasons. Lojbab wrote back and said that he couldn't fill in the question marks on his side of the table because he couldn't imagine an opaque non-veridicial. I think I can imagine one, but I don't think it's terribly useful. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Bogart cbogart@quetzal.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~