From pycyn@aol.com Mon Mar 19 08:55:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 19 Mar 2001 16:55:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 55060 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2001 16:55:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Mar 2001 16:55:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r18.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.72) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Mar 2001 16:55:54 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.ae.123e8b57 (4155) for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:55:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:55:47 EST Subject: RE: Almost n To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_ae.123e8b57.27e79413_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10501 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 6004 --part1_ae.123e8b57.27e79413_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Since, in the 150 messages on this list since I went off for spring break, no one has chewed me out for my last item on numbers, I am going ahead with the position that it was essentially correct. I can then generalize one portion of it, the response {nosoci} to the question {xonono}, to say that the way to say that a number fails to come up to your hope/expectation/need is to prefix it with {no}. This has the advantage of not changing truth values, etc. and of filling a gap in the patterns (or, better, using an anomolous form for a felt need). The suggestion that your target was in the next order of magnitude may be hyperbole, but serves to make the point (I can imagine a Hollywood bomb's gross being preceeded by {nono} even). --part1_ae.123e8b57.27e79413_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Since, in the 150 messages on this list since I went off for spring break, no
one has chewed me out for my last item on numbers, I am going ahead with the
position that it was essentially correct. I can then generalize one portion
of it, the response {nosoci} to the question {xonono}, to say that the way to
say that a number fails to come up to your hope/expectation/need is to prefix
it with {no}. This has the advantage of not changing truth values, etc. and
of filling a gap in the patterns (or, better, using an anomolous form for a
felt need). The suggestion that your target was in the next order of
magnitude may be hyperbole, but serves to make the point (I can imagine a
Hollywood bomb's gross being preceeded by {nono} even). --part1_ae.123e8b57.27e79413_boundary--