[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [lojban] Re: Military language
- To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
- Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: Military language
- From: "M@" <matthew.dunlap@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:30:52 -0700
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to:thread-index:x-mimeole; b=dtWY65UnXYQ2rsuYLaq8zB0T8ynXvJh+tEXH1zsKVt9iWqLkrGiWpRG0LCElyub/qoksId0eKWqhQmxAj3Sm2bAf11+4Id3HkMAmC6t41puT4bvg9uVY7Y+/h+LxvUK6F7/UPQlbN8OrKzXWoY39upIzKNwY9ViLzsGX/5Of+50=
- In-reply-to: <925d17560701030655ia74c764x43fa0448381c7a3f@mail.gmail.com>
- Thread-index: AccvR8sZ5uGTboIlQyau39pKHRXbUQAAmjGQ
> What would a robot bomber do?
It would run a checksum against the digitally transmitted orders, notice any
interference, and request to have the orders resent. ;)
As for ke'u I think it can be used that way, but I don't think the ke'unai
is elidable because there would be no other way to know how much was meant
to be the repetition (if the repetition was meant to help against
potentially spotty transmitions).
"NOT REPEAT NOT" is reasonable (I really don't know if its in real-world
use), but it seems to me that a cleaner solution would be to just use
different words. If you wanted someone to not repeat not bomb the pretty
little girls school you could instead say, ignore the pretty little girls
school. Can anyone think of a situation where 'not' is actually required?
--M@