On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 06:51:40PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > --- "Stefan \"1of3\" Koch" <OneOfThree@gmx.net> wrote:
> > > coi.
> > >
> > > Some time ago there was a discussion on this list whether "ro" is importing
> > > or not. I wasn't able to follow the discussion at that time since I didn't
> > > have enough knowledge of logics.
> > >
> > > By now I am a student of math (and Latin but that doesn't matter here) and I
> > > can see the problem. I just don't know what the result of the discussion
> > > was. I don't want to start the discussion all over again but I want to know
> > > whether any consensus was found.
> > >
> > > ki'e mu'omi'e ctefan.
> >
> > You may or may not find the answer here: :)
> >
> > <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=quantification+and+the+meaning+of+ro>
> >
> > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=quantification+and+the+meaning+of+ro
>
> Whether or not a consensus was found probably depends on whom you ask.
Note that this is one of the types of things the bpfk was supposed
to make official statements on, as a contradiction can be found in
CLL on the topic: it both asserts that ro is importing and declares
rules for naku boundaries which require it to be nonimporting.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgp00534.pgp
Description: PGP signature