From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Mon Jun 26 00:25:02 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3603 ; Mon, 26 Jun 95 00:25:00 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Sat, 24 Jun 95 16:03:59 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa27030; 24 Jun 95 17:03 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1553; Sat, 24 Jun 95 12:01:40 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9804; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 12:01:40 -0400 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 12:01:34 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: ve'i X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506241703.aa27030@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R I think Jorge is right that ve'i sequences are like sets. I think we might want to consider: perhaps what would be best would be to take therespectively joi operator and move it to LAhE, in which case it would only require "ce" between terms inside. The advantage is a clearer and simpler use of the respectively operator. On the other hand, in writing this, I suddenly realize that this would eliminate the ability to use "respectively" in selbri (e.g. jack and jill, respectively walked and ran up the hill.), so perhaps this would not be a good idea. lojbab