[lojban] Re: semantic primes

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

Well, you are the one to bring it up.  In this
case, what solution do you propose?  Is {pritu3}
opaque? Do you really want to say that {lo broda
cu brode} is true even when {no da broda} holds?
And, if so, what does {lo broda} mean?  As long
as you cannot give satisfactory answers to these
questions, I am afraid that {lo} will keep coming
up, though I like it probably even less than you
do.

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/20/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >    le bolci cu drani le tricu lo catlu be
> le
> > > cmana
> >
> > {pritu} not {drani}, i.e., wrong right.
> 
> Oops!! :)
> 
> > But this
> > does not solve the problem since it is either
> > false or nonsense in the situation described:
> > there is not, ex hypothesi, such a thing as
> lo
> > catlu be le cmana.
> 
> I pass from getting drawn into a {lo} thread
> again,
> thank you. We already know we disagree about
> that.
> 
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
> lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to
> http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to
> secretary@lojban.org for help.
> 
> 



To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.