From pycyn@aol.com Tue Mar 13 13:41:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 13 Mar 2001 21:41:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 75792 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2001 21:41:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Mar 2001 21:41:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.161) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Mar 2001 21:41:32 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.12.a07ad28 (14382) for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:41:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <12.a07ad28.27dfee04@aol.com> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:41:24 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Numbers To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_12.a07ad28.27dfee04_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10501 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 5819 --part1_12.a07ad28.27dfee04_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NIce starting point. It is hard to object to anything there. I gather that my move from this is to put some at least of the indefinites into pre-sign and that Lojbab want to put them into digit. We can, of course, accomodate both of these by insisting that the indefinite digits are never first, prefixing {no} if need be. It also seems that one or the other of these additions would largely take care of the other, though maybe not quite (experiments?) and I admit that the only indef I see immediate virtue in moving over is {so'a}. I suppose we are in the midst of those damned flowers blooming again, but at least it seems that we have some grounds for proceeding with our various schemes, as long as we are clear which one a given text is working with. --part1_12.a07ad28.27dfee04_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NIce starting point. It is hard to object to anything there. I gather that
my move from this is to put some at least of the indefinites into pre-sign
and that Lojbab want to put them into digit. We can, of course, accomodate
both of these by insisting that the indefinite digits are never first,
prefixing {no} if need be. It also seems that one or the other of these
additions would largely take care of the other, though maybe not quite
(experiments?) and I admit that the only indef I see immediate virtue in
moving over is {so'a}. I suppose we are in the midst of those damned flowers
blooming again, but at least it seems that we have some grounds for
proceeding with our various schemes, as long as we are clear which one a
given text is working with. --part1_12.a07ad28.27dfee04_boundary--