From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Wed Aug 29 13:46:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 20:46:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 29214 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 20:34:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 20:34:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 20:34:17 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.90.250]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010829203415.CAIE23687.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:34:15 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: Another stab at a Record on ce'u Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:33:29 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10258 Nick: > (3) ke'a does not resolve what to do when there are embedded places in > *its* abstraction; > coincidentally, I was thinking of this just this morning, walking to work. > (More evidence I've been doing too much Lojban.) Since the verdict is that > they behave similarly, let's not fix ce'u in those contexts before we have > a clear tendency on ke'a. Can you tell me what the issues about ke'a are that you think need to be resolved? Are you thinking of NOI within NOI? --And.