From pycyn@aol.com Mon Mar 11 12:54:23 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 11 Mar 2002 20:54:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 56362 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2002 20:45:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Mar 2002 20:45:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r01.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.97) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Mar 2002 20:45:50 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.36.245c53e1 (4402) for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:45:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36.245c53e1.29be716a@aol.com> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:45:30 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_36.245c53e1.29be716a_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: 13621 --part1_36.245c53e1.29be716a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/11/2002 11:09:20 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > Just for the record, I have not modified my system > at all during this discussion. It has been from the > start of the discussion, and for as long as I remember > since I started learning Lojban, this one: Sorry. You have presented so many different systems over the last few days that I am afraid I lost track of what you were actually advocating as opposed to what you were just putting forth as interesting or dreadful or whatever. Thank you for renewing your presentation of the original and still going form. Have you really known about {me'iro} for all these years? I wish you had mentioned it earlier, since I have been hunting for a good word for this for some time (probably longer than you hve been around). I am afraid I just don't see how these rules are easier than any others, but I am going to spend some time on that issue -- raised by your previous post as well. --part1_36.245c53e1.29be716a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/11/2002 11:09:20 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


Just for the record, I have not modified my system
at all during this discussion. It has been from the
start of the discussion, and for as long as I remember
since I started learning Lojban, this one:



Sorry.  You have presented so many different systems over the last few days that I am afraid I lost track of what you were actually advocating as opposed to what you were just putting forth as interesting or dreadful or whatever.  Thank you for renewing your presentation of the original and still going form.

<O+: me'iro broda cu brode = me'iro da poi broda cu brode>

Have you really known about {me'iro} for all these years?  I wish you had mentioned it earlier, since I have been hunting for a good word for this for some time (probably longer than you hve been around).

<This is because this system is the only one that has
simple rules for transformations between the different
forms and the different quantifiers.>

I am afraid I just don't see how these rules are easier than any others, but I am going to spend some time on  that issue -- raised by your previous post as well.


 --part1_36.245c53e1.29be716a_boundary--