From pycyn@aol.com Tue Aug 13 16:34:28 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 13 Aug 2002 23:34:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 82480 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2002 23:34:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2002 23:34:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d03.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.35) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 2002 23:34:27 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.14b.12638e95 (4012) for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:34:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <14b.12638e95.2a8af17b@aol.com> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:34:19 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_14b.12638e95.2a8af17b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15051 --part1_14b.12638e95.2a8af17b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/13/2002 5:53:20 PM Central Daylight Time, lojbab@lojban.org writes: << > >That's not a bad way of looking at it! {broda lo'e brode} can > >be thought of as {brode broda zi'o}, except that the tanru > >relationship is much more precise in the first case. > > Without too much thought, I think I can live with that, which might make it > > the first time that pc, Jorge and lojbab have ever agreed on something %^) > >> Count me out. It is as close as I can come to what xoorxes might mean, but I have no reason yet to thaink that that is a useful thing for any Lojban expression to mean. Indeed, I thought it was such a pointless notion that I put it forward as a demonstration of how remote xorxes proposals were from anything Lojbanic. << I'm not sure it really "defines" lo'e but it seems like to would be workable thing to use in explaining its usage "all in lojban" whenever we get to trying to do so without resort to natural language examples >> ignotum per ignotius --part1_14b.12638e95.2a8af17b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/13/2002 5:53:20 PM Central Daylight Time, lojbab@lojban.org writes:

<<
>That's not a bad way of looking at it! {broda lo'e brode} can
>be thought of as {brode broda zi'o}, except that the tanru
>relationship is much more precise in the first case.

Without too much thought, I think I can live with that, which might make it
the first time that pc, Jorge and lojbab have ever agreed on something %^)
>>


Count me out.  It is  as close as I can come to what xoorxes might mean, but I have no reason yet to thaink that that is a useful thing for any Lojban expression to mean.  Indeed, I thought it was such a pointless notion that I put it forward as a demonstration of how remote xorxes proposals were from anything Lojbanic.

<<
I'm not sure it really "defines" lo'e but it seems like to would be
workable thing to use in explaining its usage "all in lojban" whenever we
get to trying to do so without resort to natural language examples
>>
ignotum per ignotius --part1_14b.12638e95.2a8af17b_boundary--