[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: xorxes' idea of UI, as interpreted (was Re: [bpfk] Re: The Case for UI.)



On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Theodore Reed <ted.reed@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:57, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
It's a little bit like the whole "CAhA when unspecified is
undefined" thing, which is disturbing in that it means that any
sentence could be false-to-fact without declaring so, but the
principle of non-gluteality applies better in this case than in that
one.

Related to this, and to what xalbo said since, is this part of my fundamental understanding of Lojban: Everything, when unspecified, is undefined. If you want to define it, specify it. Otherwise, leave it to context. (And I fully expect that any remotely conversational Lojbanist will do just that, *often*.)

-- bancus 

.i.ie mi cmima

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko klama le bende pe denpa bu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.