From <@uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Tue Jul 25 15:16:36 1995 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu (uga.cc.uga.edu [128.192.1.5]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id PAA21234 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 1995 15:16:29 -0400 Message-Id: <199507251916.PAA21234@locke.ccil.org> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9528; Tue, 25 Jul 95 15:07:40 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1685; Tue, 25 Jul 1995 14:17:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 18:50:08 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: noa regressing To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: OR Lojbab: > And: > >The current logic of {nei} and {noa} seems rather odd to me - it seems > >to give an infinite regression of bridis that contain copies of > >themselves. I've probably misunderstood {nei} and {noa}, but if I > >haven't maybe they could be reassigned. [I guess they are intended to > >be used with gadri, e.g. {lo te noa}, but I don't see how that avoids > >infinite regression.] > la djef. jinvi ledu'u > la djan. cu klama le zarci le zdani fu le karce po le nei > Jeff opines that John goes to the store from the house in his (John's) > car. la djef. jinvi leduu la djan. cu klama le zarci fu le karce po le nei be la djan bei le zarci bei fu le karce po le nei be la djan bei le zarci fu le karce po le nei be la djan bei le zarci bei fu le karce po le nei be la djan bei le zarci fu le karce po le nei be la djan bei le zarci bei fu le karce po le nei be la djan bei le zarci fu le karce po le nei be la djan bei le zarci bei fu le karce po le nei be la djan bei le zarci fu le karce po le nei be la djan bei le zarci bei fu le karce po le nei be la djan bei le zarci fu le karce po le nei..... --- And