Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id UAA03790 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 20:44:27 -0500
Message-Id: <199602220144.UAA03790@locke.ccil.org>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 8564F1EE ; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 20:06:16 -0500
Date:         Wed, 21 Feb 1996 18:09:00 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: Cowan denounces "je'a xi <number>"
X-To:         Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 389
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Feb 22 11:16:45 1996
X-From-Space-Address: -

John:
> > > 3)  That I do not and will not propose assigning meaning (fuzzy or
> > >     otherwise) to "je'a xi <number>" (it's already grammatical).
> I should have said "will not propose an assigned meaning for"
> rather than "will not propose assigning meaning to".

Why will you not propose an assigned meaning for {jea xi}?
[I'm not lobbying for one; I'm  just curious.]
coo, mie and