From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Wed Jul 02 17:46:49 2003
Return-Path: <lojban-out@lojban.org>
X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 47257 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2003 00:46:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216)
  by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Jul 2003 00:46:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175)
  by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 2003 00:46:47 -0000
Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12)
	id 19XsFL-0004bx-00
	for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:46:47 -0700
Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19XsFD-0004bW-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:46:40 -0700
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web41902.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.153])
	by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19XsF1-0004bA-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:46:27 -0700
Message-ID: <20030703004556.95391.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [200.69.5.23] by web41902.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:45:56 PDT
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [lojban] Re: {Archivist} Intention of gunma?
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <20030702213610.GH3306@digitalkingdom.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 5801
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar
Precedence: bulk
X-list: lojban-list
From: Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107
X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20282


--- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> Was the intention of the definition of gunma to allow things like:
> 
>     le cecmu cu gunma mi
> 
> Or do we need to do things like
> 
>     le cecmu cu gunma lu'i mi ce da
> 
> ?

You don't need {lu'i} there because {mi ce da} is already a set.
{lu'i mi ce da} is the set whose only member is the set {mi ce da}. 
(At least that's what I think it is, but the BPFK will have to
make clarifications on how LAhE works.)

Anyway, none of that answers your question. You can find my
personal opinion on the matter here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/7008

(The question came up often but it never received a definitive
answer.)
 
mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com