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 m0rmAvM-00007YC; Wed, 8 Mar 95 03:52 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4868; Wed, 08 Mar 95 03:52:04 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4865; Wed, 8 Mar 1995 03:52:04 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7110; Wed, 8 Mar 1995 02:48:07 +0100 Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 20:49:33 -0500 Reply-To: querist@BIX.COM Sender: Lojban list From: Glyn Gowing Subject: Imaginary Journeys X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 864 Lines: 25 I just finished reading Imaginary Journeys and the Negation papers, and i want to say that they are both brilliant. They've clarified many matters which the draft text did not cover. I believe i _may_ have found an error or two in the Imaginary Journeys paper: p 15: example 21.10 reads: la .artr. pu je'i ba nolraitru je'i is defined in my cmavo list as the /tanru/ afterthought question connector. Maybe i'm missing something here, but wouldn't ji make more sense here? Also, in the proposed replies: je is listed to indicate 'both' (makes sense) The next two, however, seem reversed: in the paper they read: naje 'the former' and jenai 'the latter' If i understand the conjunctions correctly, it appears that those two were somehow reversed, since x naje y is like (not x) je y and x jenai y is like x and (not y). mi'e glyn. co'o