From pycyn@aol.com Sun Mar 10 06:35:42 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 10 Mar 2002 14:35:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 97142 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2002 14:35:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Mar 2002 14:35:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d01.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.33) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Mar 2002 14:35:42 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.112.dddab06 (26119) for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 09:35:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <112.dddab06.29bcc933@aol.com> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 09:35:31 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Quantifiers, Esistential Import, etc. To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_112.dddab06.29bcc933_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: 13599 --part1_112.dddab06.29bcc933_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/9/2002 8:27:42 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > In content your system and mine are identical. It would > worry me if they were not. It is only in form that they > differ, I am absolutely sure that we have no disagreement > about the underlying logic. We have been discussing only > about the form, have we not? > Actually, as time progresses, we seem to be down just to the question of where {da poi} fits in and whether {ro} is compatible with {no} as internal quantifiers (indeed, whether {no} can be one with {lo}. --part1_112.dddab06.29bcc933_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/9/2002 8:27:42 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


In content your system and mine are identical. It would
worry me if they were not. It is only in form that they
differ, I am absolutely sure that we have no disagreement
about the underlying logic. We have been discussing only
about the form, have we not?


Actually, as time progresses, we seem to be down just to the question of where {da poi} fits in and whether {ro}  is compatible with {no} as internal quantifiers (indeed, whether {no} can be one with {lo}. --part1_112.dddab06.29bcc933_boundary--