Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 8 Nov 2002 02:19:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 48211 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2002 02:19:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Nov 2002 02:19:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.104) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2002 02:19:17 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.16a.16c42412 (26116) for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:19:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <16a.16c42412.2afc7921@aol.com> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:19:13 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: importing ro To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_16a.16c42412.2afc7921_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 230 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 17020 Content-Length: 5120 Lines: 91 --part1_16a.16c42412.2afc7921_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/7/2002 5:26:48 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << > I had forgotten that you don't accept > > ro broda cu brode > = ro da poi broda cu brode >> Only if the latter = ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode. One equation or the other is fine, just not both (which reduces the first to the last). << You have no grounds for saying this "is just not true", unless it is clearly stated in the Red Book of Woldemar. It is not a question of logic, it is merely a question of Lojban. Those two structures are equivalent if we decree they are and not equivalent if we decree they aren't. They are Lojban bridi, not logical formulas. >> Well, it is about as clear in CLL as almost anything else -- that is, not very. Still, over the years the case for it has become clearer. As for whether the two sentences (I mean the clear cases, {ro broda cu brode} and {ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode} -- I agree that the {da poi} case could go either way) are equivalent, I suppose that, since they look exactly like two different sentences in Logic and Lojban is spoken Logic, I expect that the difference will carry over. Otherwise, some part of this story has to go, and then the floodgates are open. << I really don't see what we have to lose by agreeing on the 3-way equation, except for confusion and endless discussion. If you want {ro broda cu brode} to entail {su'o broda cu brode}, let's judt define you an experimental cmavo ro'o'o that works your way & then everyone is happy. >> You do have it backwards, you know. The importing {ro} has been here for going on 50 years, so the {ro'o'o} goes for non-importing one (actually, there are better versions for it -- {ro da ganai gi} being the most obvious). << In the light of this, can we take this issue as settled? In the spirit of resolving the debate, I will even offer to document ro'o'o on the wiki (to the best of my ability), if you wish. >> don't care about {ro'o'o}, so long as you get the basic stuff right: {ro} always and everywhere imports for its subject. It does seem that you do not have that bit down yet after all these years. --part1_16a.16c42412.2afc7921_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/7/2002 5:26:48 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:
<<

I had forgotten that you don't accept

ro broda cu brode
= ro da poi broda cu brode

>>
Only if the latter = ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode. One equation or the other is fine, just not both (which reduces the first to the last).

<<
You have no grounds for saying this "is just not true", unless it
is clearly stated in the Red Book of Woldemar. It is not a question
of logic, it is merely a question of Lojban. Those two structures
are equivalent if we decree they are and not equivalent if we
decree they aren't. They are Lojban bridi, not logical formulas.
>>
Well, it is about as clear in CLL as almost anything else -- that is, not very. Still, over the years the case for it has become clearer. As for whether the two sentences (I mean the clear cases, {ro broda cu brode} and {ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode} -- I agree that the {da poi} case could go either way) are equivalent, I suppose that, since they look exactly like two different sentences in Logic and Lojban is spoken Logic, I expect that the difference will carry over. Otherwise, some part of this story has to go, and then the floodgates are open.

<<
I really don't see what we have to lose by agreeing on the 3-way
equation, except for confusion and endless discussion. If you
want {ro broda cu brode} to entail {su'o broda cu brode}, let's
judt define you an experimental cmavo ro'o'o that works your
way & then everyone is happy.
>>
You do have it backwards, you know. The importing {ro} has been here for going on 50 years, so the {ro'o'o} goes for non-importing one (actually, there are better versions for it -- {ro da ganai gi} being the most obvious).

<<
In the light of this, can we take this issue as settled? In the
spirit of resolving the debate, I will even offer to document
ro'o'o on the wiki (to the best of my ability), if you wish.
>>
don't care about {ro'o'o}, so long as you get the basic stuff right: {ro} always and everywhere imports for its subject. It does seem that you do not have that bit down yet after all these years.
--part1_16a.16c42412.2afc7921_boundary--