From pycyn@aol.com Sun Jun 17 08:33:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 17 Jun 2001 15:33:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 74728 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2001 15:33:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Jun 2001 15:33:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m01.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.4) by mta2 with SMTP; 17 Jun 2001 15:33:17 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.ae.1678a0d0 (4444) for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:33:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:33:12 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Are attitudinals assertions? (was: Attitudinals again (was: Sapi... To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_ae.1678a0d0.285e27b8_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8103 --part1_ae.1678a0d0.285e27b8_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/16/2001 7:41:27 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > la pycyn cusku di'e > > > > i ti'e le nu se menli lo kucli cu romei lei sarcu be > > > le nu pagbu le nunkelci > > > >Ahah! Someone else hs decided to test my reading ability. So today I just > >go > >with what is meant, not with what is said. > > Not fair! What did I say that I did not mean? > > (My use of masses in purportedly settish places is intentional, > if that's the objection.). > Sorry, just preparing for attacks. I am used to your attitude toward sets and at least here agree with it. My only worry is whether being a part of the event of being a player is quite the same as taking part in the game -- I might be some other part of that event than the person: I might be the toy, for example. I have no ideas about abetter way to say it (except, of course, just {le nu kelci}) but the idiom seems mildly malglico. --part1_ae.1678a0d0.285e27b8_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/16/2001 7:41:27 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:



la pycyn cusku di'e

> > i ti'e le nu se menli lo kucli cu romei lei sarcu be
> > le nu pagbu le nunkelci
>
>Ahah! Someone else hs decided to test my reading ability.  So today I just
>go
>with what is meant, not with what is said.

Not fair! What did I say that I did not mean?

(My use of masses in purportedly settish places is intentional,
if that's the objection.).




Sorry, just preparing for attacks.  I am used to your attitude toward sets
and at least here agree with it.   My only worry is whether being a part of
the event of being a player is quite the same as taking part in the game -- I
might be some other part of that event than the person: I might be the toy,
for example.  I have no ideas about abetter way to say it (except, of course,
just {le nu kelci}) but the idiom seems mildly malglico. --part1_ae.1678a0d0.285e27b8_boundary--