From pycyn@aol.com Sun Mar 03 12:32:43 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 3 Mar 2002 20:32:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 70331 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2002 20:32:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2002 20:32:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2002 20:32:42 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.39.234476d5 (3959) for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 15:32:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <39.234476d5.29b3e253@aol.com> Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 15:32:19 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautologies To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_39.234476d5.29b3e253_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: 13496 --part1_39.234476d5.29b3e253_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/3/2002 10:43:46 AM Central Standard Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > And you wouldn't want {abu ly ibu cy ebu} to evaluate, so you'd put a > {me'o} in front. > No, I wouldn't, because all the examples I have (the Refgram, 17.2.1, 2) do without the {me'o}. You can say that spelling is a special context or you can say that the Refgram screwed this up worse, but it still does it this way and I would follow it. No, {a} is a sumti conjunction, {ai} is in UI, {n} is not a Lojban > expression. You're having fun mixing up levels, aren't you? Fine: any string of BY, including (any selma'o)+BU, which appears outside of mekso, is a pronoun, and so it refers to the referent of the pronoun. Do you agree with this?> No level mixing, just the issue of what refers to what -- that is use-mention confusion on a general level. But, yes, it is fun to catch someone in it. I do almost agree with what you say, except for spelling and 17.2.3 (and the implications of 17.10.6) --part1_39.234476d5.29b3e253_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/3/2002 10:43:46 AM Central Standard Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes:


And you wouldn't want {abu ly ibu cy ebu} to evaluate, so you'd put a
{me'o} in front.


No, I wouldn't, because all the examples I have (the Refgram, 17.2.1, 2) do without the {me'o}.  You can say that spelling is a special context or you can say that the Refgram screwed this up worse, but it still does it this way and I would follow it.

<A lerfu or lerfu string on its own is a pronoun. Always.

> No, {a} is a sumti conjunction, {ai} is in UI, {n} is not a Lojban
> expression.

You're having fun mixing up levels, aren't you? Fine: any string of BY,
including (any selma'o)+BU, which appears outside of mekso, is a
pronoun, and so it refers to the referent of the pronoun. Do you agree
with this?>

No level mixing, just the issue of what refers to what -- that is use-mention confusion on a general level.  But, yes, it is fun to catch someone in it.  I do almost agree with what you say, except for spelling and 17.2.3 (and the implications of 17.10.6)



 --part1_39.234476d5.29b3e253_boundary--