From pycyn@aol.com Sun Sep 29 13:17:24 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 29 Sep 2002 20:17:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 29695 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2002 20:17:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Sep 2002 20:17:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 2002 20:17:24 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.18a.eff1aec (4320) for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 16:17:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <18a.eff1aec.2ac8b9ce@aol.com> Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 16:17:18 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: sticky hypothesis To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_18a.eff1aec.2ac8b9ce_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: 16225 --part1_18a.eff1aec.2ac8b9ce_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/29/2002 2:51:20 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: << > No it doesn't. It doesn't attach the ki to the da'i. I was trying > to find a way to do that using fi'o and such, but it doesn't work, > the KI gets read into a rule for simple-tense-modal which is nothing but > a KI. So "ki" standing alone is in fact a term. >> I've got to stop trusting these parsers! But, OK, it is a tense now set under the {da'i}. The effect is still what is wanted: we stay at that place until released. So, I suppose we do need {ki} again to get out -- probably {ki da'inai} to look good. --part1_18a.eff1aec.2ac8b9ce_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/29/2002 2:51:20 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:

<<
No it doesn't.  It doesn't attach the ki to the da'i.  I was trying
to find a way to do that using fi'o and such, but it doesn't work,
the KI gets read into a rule for simple-tense-modal which is nothing but
a KI.  So "ki" standing alone is in fact a term.

>>
I've got to stop trusting these parsers!  But, OK, it is a tense now set under the {da'i}.  The effect is still what is wanted: we stay at that place until released.  So, I suppose we do need {ki} again to get out -- probably {ki da'inai} to look good.




 --part1_18a.eff1aec.2ac8b9ce_boundary--