From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 27 13:23:51 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 20:23:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 15342 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 20:23:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 20:23:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m01.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.4) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 20:23:50 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.90.2c775efa (17377) for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:23:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <90.2c775efa.2ac61854@aol.com> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:23:48 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_90.2c775efa.2ac61854_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: 16128 --part1_90.2c775efa.2ac61854_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/27/2002 1:37:41 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > Defining that {lo broda na brode} has to stand for {naku lo broda > cu brode} and not for {lo broda naku cu brode} is neither logical > nor illogical, it's just one possible convention. You can't say > that one expression is more logical than the other. Each has its > own logical meaning. >> As usual, "logical" applied to Lojban means "how to do it in the usual language of formal logic," which, in this case (as usually), is the standrad Lojban convention. (But there are perfectly good logical systems tht do it otherwise -- including especially ones that, like Lojban, are SVO rather than VSO.) --part1_90.2c775efa.2ac61854_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/27/2002 1:37:41 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<

Defining that {lo broda na brode} has to stand for {naku lo broda
cu brode} and not for {lo broda naku cu brode} is neither logical
nor illogical, it's just one possible convention. You can't say
that one expression is more logical than the other. Each has its
own logical meaning.

>>
As usual, "logical" applied to Lojban means "how to do it in the usual language of formal logic," which, in this case (as usually), is the standrad Lojban convention. (But there are perfectly good logical systems tht do it otherwise -- including especially ones that, like Lojban, are SVO rather than VSO.) --part1_90.2c775efa.2ac61854_boundary--