Mail Index

• Thread Index

• RE: [jboske] What is a lojbanmass? Quantification
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• Lojbab on tu'o (was: RE: RE: Nick on propositionalism &c.
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] RE: Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: RE: Digest Number 134
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• factivity of nu
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• talking about 2
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• RE: [jboske] Aristotelian vs. modern logic
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] The two faces of tu'o (was: Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: Digest Number 134))
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• factivity of nu
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• Kinds
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• RE: [jboske] Subject: RE: lo/le definition
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] factivity of nu
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] factivity of nu
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] Kinds
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• Re: [jboske] Aristotelian vs. modern logic
  • From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
• Lojban is fxxxed
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• RE: [jboske] talking about 2
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] Lojban is fxxxed
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] The two faces of tu'o (was: Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: Digest Number 134))
  • From: Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>
• Ontology #3
  • From: Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>
• Excellent Solutions
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• Status of names
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• po'o
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• RE: [jboske] The two faces of tu'o (was: Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: Digest Number 134))
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• Re: [jboske] Lojbab on tu'o (was: RE: RE: Nick on propositionalism &c.
  • From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
• RE: [jboske] RE: Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: RE: Digest Number 134
  • From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
• RE: [jboske] The two faces of tu'o (was: Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: Digest Number 134))
  • From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
• RE: [jboske] factivity of nu
  • From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
• Re: [jboske] Lojban is fxxxed
  • From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
• Eating individuals
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• alleged ambiguity of lo
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• twentysomething
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• Re: [jboske] Ontology #1
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• Re: [jboske] lo/le definition
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• RE: [jboske] The two faces of tu'o (was: Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: Digest Number 134))
  • From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
• Re: [jboske] 3rd version of gadri system (3rd ExSol)
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• Re: [jboske] RE: Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: RE: Digest
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• Re: [jboske] Ontology #3
  • From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
• Re: [jboske] factivity of nu
  • From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
• Re: [jboske] factivity of nu
  • From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
• RE: [jboske] Status of names
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] The two faces of tu'o (was: Nick on propositionalism&c. (was: Digest Number 134))
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] Lojban is fxxxed
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] Ontology #3
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] Lojbab on tu'o (was: RE: RE: Nick on propositionalism &c
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] RE: Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: RE: Digest Number 134
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] 3rd version of gadri system (3rd ExSol)
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] factivity of nu
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] lo/le definition
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] factivity of nu
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• Re: [jboske] Ontology #3
  • From: Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>
• RE: [jboske] The two faces of tu'o (was: Nick on propositionalism&c. (was: Digest Number 134))
  • From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
• RE: [jboske] Lojbab on tu'o (was: RE: RE: Nick on propositionalism &c
  • From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group <lojbab@lojban.org>
• And-Kind
  • From: Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>
• RE: Lojbab on tu'o (was: RE: RE: Nick on propositionalism &c
  • From: Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>
• Transfinites
  • From: Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>
• Re: [jboske] RE: Lojbab on tu'o (was: RE: RE: Nick on propositionalism &c
  • From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
• RE: [jboske] And-Kind
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• Re: [jboske] Transfinites
  • From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
• Re: [jboske] Lojban is fxxxed
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• Re: [jboske] Aristotelian vs. modern logic
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• Re: [jboske] RE: Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: RE: Digest Number 134
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• Re: [jboske] lo/le definition
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• Re: [jboske] factivity of nu
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• The un-common-sensical-ness of non-importing ro
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• Kludgesome Solution #1
  • From: Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>
• intuitive zi'o and middle voice
  • From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
• RE: [jboske] Lojbab on tu'o (was: RE: RE: Nick on propositionalism &c
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] RE: Lojbab on tu'o (was: RE: RE: Nick on propositionalism &c
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• Re: [jboske] Transfinites
  • From: Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>
• Re: [jboske] Aristotelian vs. modern logic
  • From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
• RE: [jboske] RE: Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: RE: Digest Number 134
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] lo/le definition
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• Re: [jboske] Aristotelian vs. modern logic
  • From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
• Re: [jboske] The un-common-sensical-ness of non-importing ro
  • From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
• Re: [jboske] RE: Lojbab on tu'o (was: RE: RE: Nick on propositionalism &c
  • From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
• Re: [jboske] Lojban is fxxxed
  • From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
• Re: [jboske] Lojban is fxxxed
  • From: Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>
• RE: [jboske] Lojbab on tu'o (was: RE: RE: Nick on propositionalism &c
  • From: Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>
• Re: [jboske] Transfinites
  • From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
• RE: [jboske] factivity of nu
  • From: Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>
• OT: verification principle (was Re: [jboske] factivity of nu)
  • From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
• Re: [jboske] Transfinites
  • From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
• Re: OT: verification principle (was Re: [jboske] factivity of nu)
  • From: Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>
• Re: OT: verification principle (was Re: [jboske] factivity of nu)
  • From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
• RE: [jboske] Aristotelian vs. modern logic
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] Transfinites
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• RE: [jboske] Kludgesome Solution #1
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• Re: [jboske] ExSol ver 4.0
  • From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
• RE: [jboske] factivity of nu
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• Fermat propositionalism (was: RE: Transfinites
  • From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
• Re: OT: verification principle (was Re: [jboske] factivity of nu)
  • From: Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>
• RE: [jboske] factivity of nu
  • From: Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>
• Re: OT: verification principle (was Re: [jboske] factivity of nu)
  • From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
• Re: OT: verification principle (was Re: [jboske] factivity of nu)
  • From: Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>
• RE: [jboske] Kludgesome Solution #1
  • From: Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>
• RE: [jboske] Ontology #3
  • From: Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>
• Re: OT: verification principle (was Re: [jboske] factivity of nu)
  • From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
• Re: [jboske] Transfinites
  • From: Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>
• Subject:? RE: [jboske] Transfinites
  • From: Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>
• Emergence solved
  • From: Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>