From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Tue Feb 01 16:46:30 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 79981 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2005 00:46:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m16.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Feb 2005 00:46:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Feb 2005 00:46:29 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1Cw8eN-0002W0-JK for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:45:43 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cw8eC-0002Va-IT; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:45:32 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:45:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from web41908.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.159]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cw8e1-0002V6-Na for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:45:21 -0800 Received: (qmail 22798 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Feb 2005 00:44:50 -0000 Message-ID: <20050202004450.22796.qmail@web41908.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.114.197.118] by web41908.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:44:50 PST Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:44:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20050201221125.1247.qmail@web81309.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 9401 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 X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Subject: [lojban] Re: Minimal Lojban X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23779 --- John E Clifford wrote: > --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > TUhE-TUhU, otherwise you can't get all > > groupings of the > > connectives. (If you use GA GI instead if I JA > > you don't > > need these.) > > My favorite argument for Polish notation. Is GA GI strictly Polish, given the GI? The more general gek gik, which includes things like {genai ... ginai ...} does not even have the full operator content in front. > Do we > really need TUhE-TUhO? Aren't there a set of > reverse grouping and hierarchical grouping > markers that pretty much cover all cases (there > used to be)? There is {I jek BO} for tight grouping but that won't cover all cases. For example {broda i ja tu'e brode i jo brodi i je brodo tu'u} can't be done with just {bo}. (This is all purely theoretical though, because such constructions are utterly incomprehensible without detailed analysis anyway.) mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com