From lojban+bncCK30vq5WELDAt-YEGgR-ub4-@googlegroups.com Sun Oct 31 14:31:42 2010 Received: from mail-px0-f189.google.com ([209.85.212.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PCfV4-0000f3-Ru; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:31:42 -0700 Received: by pxi19 with SMTP id 19sf169981pxi.16 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:31:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:date:from:to:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LCxI8RvCizabdEQKDEtZT58lISM6h1fctUDoV1c46ew=; b=Ci6CZAxuqL8lZum1tOMno6F734WrGgMtCMFL4znHMUcWsE3ztV5skyz+tQtVB3vXaF uKgJXGlz8XwZya7U287E+OxyNN+cXnA2VvtwHRB8//drYdMyYs5npA1RkCPy5QqM2ENX 6+b1RSpW45wCF1oASuRdb8Q3aNOOXb4ucSAdg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding; b=ZJA0fToZNVNMB7+6hQT+MF8YUTUPsOjx3vbOAOO3WdAh9ZqOYUsPOmK0RRz4eVje6V ZGPmjlyQzo0/xCFmWdNug/7knU19qyWyWmQZ9KDxNXEwAc21Xc7FHxvgN9qGCMcZWZ6W r/BwdQ1O9Qhi36CFq2BOlYG6hyCQTrSvw+Iic= Received: by 10.142.65.4 with SMTP id n4mr162169wfa.54.1288560688320; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:31:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.78.15 with SMTP id a15ls4851515wfb.2.p; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.187.3 with SMTP id k3mr1399855wff.74.1288560687419; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.187.3 with SMTP id k3mr1399854wff.74.1288560687389; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org (digitalkingdom.org [173.13.139.234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id y8si7989041wfj.5.2010.10.31.14.31.27; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) client-ip=173.13.139.234; Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PCfUp-0000Uo-BQ for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:31:23 -0700 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:31:23 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] cu-alike for other situations Message-ID: <20101031213123.GG1105@digitalkingdom.org> References: <20101031173116.GX1105@digitalkingdom.org> <20101031195943.GR8367@nvg.org> <20101031200157.GD1105@digitalkingdom.org> <20101031211948.GF1105@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Original-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 06:27:58PM -0300, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Robin Lee Powell > wrote: > > > > I found the example as-is perfectly useful; to me it is much > > easier to think "I want to do the x3 of the next outer bridi > > now" and just *say that* then have to figure out what I need to > > close to achieve that result. =A0The way I proposed fits the way I > > think about the language a lot better. >=20 > How does the proposed "cu fi" differ from the current "vau fi" > then? >=20 > "vau" tells you to terminate the current bridi and move on. I seem to recall cases where vau wasn't sufficient to do what I want, but nothing's coming to mind at the moment. The next time that happens I'll try to take note. -Robin --=20 http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future. Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false" is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/ --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.