From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:49:15 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 14712 invoked from network); 12 Apr 1997 06:07:51 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 12 Apr 1997 06:07:51 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <11.14905297@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 8:07:51 +0100 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 20:51:44 -0300 Reply-To: "Jorge J. Llambias" Sender: Lojban list From: "Jorge J. Llambias" Subject: Re: CPE: Corliss Lamont X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 693 Lines: 20 Message-ID: la ~mark cusku di'e > Isn't a syllogism really just something like a {du'u nibli}? Maybe, but not every {du'u nibli} is a syllogism. For example, I couldn't translate "All syllogisms are true" as {ro du'u nibli cu jetnu}. > Or maybe > something to do with {te nibli}? Perhaps. What exactly is a {te nibli} anyway? It probably won't happen in the first edition of the dictionary, but I think it would be very useful if in some later edition we could have a full sentence under every gismu with all of its places filled. I'm not sure I could make a sentence with {nibli} filling the x3 place with something meaningful. Is a {te nibli} anything more precise than a {logji}? co'o mi'e xorxes