[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bibletranslation style question)

To: lojban <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bibletranslation style question)
From: Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:28:43 -0500 (EST)
In-reply-to: <LPBBLNNHBOGBGAINBIEFEEOBCFAA.raganok@intrex.net>

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Craig wrote:

> vi'o. I propose this: if '.ui' had a truth value, then it would be
> indistinguishable from 'mi gleki' - and thus there would have been no need
> to create it, as we could use 'mi gleki' instead.

You realize, of course, that this is a corollary and not a contradiction
at all. A reductio, but not to anything absurd!

-- 
The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.

References:
- RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bibletranslation style question)
  - From: "Craig" <ragnarok@pobox.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [lojban] utterances
Next by Date: RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bibletranslation style question)
Previous by thread: RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bibletranslation style question)
Next by thread: RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bibletranslation style question)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread