Date:  Sat, 25 Oct 1997 01:53:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710250653.BAA25725@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: machine translation
To:         jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR
Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 535
Lines: 17

>>> I won't know
>--More--
>>> at least until I understand "anti-ka", which I have been given to
>>> understand is the answer to my prayers and a can of worms.
>>
>>? I've never even HEARD of "anti-ka". Sounds toxic. :)
>
>Indeed, I hope lojbab explains what he meant by that.

I defer to Cowan.  You guys talked about this around 2 years ago, and
at some point we decided that we didn't need an explicit construct,
but my only concept of it is as an inverse operation for the abstraction
that is "ka".

John?

lojbab