From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Apr 27 06:30:59 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FZ6Zo-0003JO-Cs for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:30:36 -0700 Received: from web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.124]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FZ6Zn-0003JF-2K for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:30:36 -0700 Received: (qmail 2181 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Apr 2006 13:30:34 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=x1ZRXjDOfHiImFpHDNKrqevkYhKmSElkIFoEbxKt9Z0kizbVjUN3V9Xo2HWJkEIOsmSDNl9u2Nr7wOfQ3R2mZiDAO6lAH5xlQNWmxDzx14N06KV8PLVNYEkbumSuP8byQdKt31NeH+pWaupZeG4yeYYx0g5Kh6hfhgsnLnHw8SA= ; Message-ID: <20060427133034.2179.qmail@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.186.84] by web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:30:34 PDT Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:30:34 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: About jboselkei reviews To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560604261738g1e8afc7bl9148e40d91298754@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11348 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Although the cited discussions seem to be from the remote past, it is good to see that the issues have been thought about. Can there be finally some consensus and actually doing somehting about the problems? I am not a fan of CV(V)'VV forms, at least while CVV is so crowded with forms of doubtful usefulness (and meaning). I am also not too sure about all the possible words functions: that is a nice metaphor and a handy tool, but not something to enshrine in the language (any more than all the numbers being defined as sets of various sorts). So, right now, all I am rooting for is a good "it is possible that" and "it is necessary that" at the modal level.Counterfactuals and related notions need to be dealt with, but I don't yet see the need to go beyond the regimented use of {da'i}. --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 4/26/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > (We need the dual, "it is necessary > > that" as well, but that is barely available > even > > as a predicate.) > > {bi'ai} is the cmavo proposed for that: > > > And then there's {mu'ei} for a more general > take: > > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to > lojban-list-request@lojban.org > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to > http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to > secretary@lojban.org for help. > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.