From pycyn@aol.com Tue Feb 26 13:12:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 26 Feb 2002 21:12:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 69995 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2002 21:12:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2002 21:12:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d05.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.37) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2002 21:12:20 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.163.976d99d (4540) for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:12:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <163.976d99d.29ad542f@aol.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:12:15 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] go'i: repeated referents or just sumti? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_163.976d99d.29ad542f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13409 --part1_163.976d99d.29ad542f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/26/2002 1:19:39 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > (Strictly speaking, the sumti are the referents, but you > follow the usual tradition we have here of misusing 'sumti' > to refer to the words rather than to the arguments themselves.) > Is this strictly speaking? The Book and the lists are ambiguous, without being explicit either way. I take it that we need specifications to be totally clear about all the technical terms, though I think they were all intended to be about words, not things. --part1_163.976d99d.29ad542f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/26/2002 1:19:39 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


(Strictly speaking, the sumti are the referents, but you
follow the usual tradition we have here of misusing 'sumti'
to refer to the words rather than to the arguments themselves.)


Is this strictly speaking?  The Book and the lists are ambiguous, without being explicit either way.  I take it that we need specifications to be totally clear about all the technical terms, though I think they were all intended to be about words, not things. --part1_163.976d99d.29ad542f_boundary--