[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[jbovlaste] Re: proceed/continue/advance
- To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
- Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: proceed/continue/advance
- From: Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 01:28:42 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JLiZj3cuSHIVlGJMVutuPzaloEHiUc2vLwgl1k966Io=; b=PhdZHxIvh6EkEb0g3LnPEwQfnHxLZ+f2PLQDT8a6Uffl5YZx93ar4bb35zuGZja3zo eNsTmgpYoniZSu20Xwbt5Ebk9cR/45rAlMZwhuLHyOWRpKImHGo2OjYwnSkFh7S4wWYs pMqPZ4pRBg3CFOBUy4aD4iGkGBxXO8O4/cufA=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=kH9FVFZ6QwtIB90boUKpYixPOcd0AgukCkiwtxa1YfdAtOBfHEGwLOICFTUWDoUsbH HN4PrxglOMWeUKMxkCrlfuqzgCpUMalshU/Jr0gjLlWM4VxgaFoK3iTAsJnKZ65f/UT5 WFqtylL8uGC8zUHHIyOZz3EQNVsu3W9f6HvKU=
- In-reply-to: <AANLkTinMYHH0m0y_7hMaE7TNZ1xpn8ViNym5fKAGn0sz@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <AANLkTikyormhAUaV=G1nwaxn=TnEE0zHX08kL=dc51PJ@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinMYHH0m0y_7hMaE7TNZ1xpn8ViNym5fKAGn0sz@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
- Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
2011/3/31 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Michael Turniansky
> <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm leaning towards lamyzu'e --
>> z1 proceeds/continues/advances/takes the next step l1=z2 in sequence of
>> actions l3 towards goal z3 after step l2
>>
>> But I'm not really liking it..
>> Opinions? Better options?
>>
>> It feels like it should be pruce-based, but I can't figure out how.
>
> toldenpa?
>
> x1 proceeds (from?) x2 with step/action x3 towards ending finishing x4
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
Not bad. Or even depnonydza: d1 waits for nothing before
proceeding from state d3 in process d4
--gejyspa