[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: About the negators
- To: lojban-list@lojban.org
- Subject: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: About the negators
- From: "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:04:40 -0300
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=lUJl1mZcxG6a2B2K1walFtdHaELtx16fS/5FhaC4ODM=; b=OCqg2HuRQL3MLmIg+M3d/Vih/991yRlTrR036kDLW6/lnnqnn+zg0l+YST/IHCyXFm HiXbc6XSRPHwUzvYOC10r3/besaRe29vfM6GECYwOhb+dnBJJSr2xXzUQZP+shNTGnGo nrIUNPmfRDZ6fA38sxIVj9iXGCtziZ8KxNVHU=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=kFmW/kamOtiTsY06pq0PCXf+MbudDGFG0rjKBnrdn2Ebhqick66n41aYNhHnagBGcy FuMY/KDCrAT8rzewOmlwp51oZI02xBGw8ZCGYAswMLX45ZkM1ENP7Yqzrh52IbM2J3Xp 5JPW60rsZJOO9HGSWVY1jCecghkzvKC6ieLDA=
- In-reply-to: <96f789a60812170541l7c557403te2eee2ea38fc8a1c@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <70697fa40812152124u39a177a2hc52d604e9a30e469@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812160908j49f6d818y1fdcdf21bfddfb28@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812161137u6919c05cyf5958e9949ccfaf7@mail.gmail.com> <200812161859.52969.phma@phma.optus.nu> <925d17560812161637y2caa5a41i32372fc376cf603a@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812170455k54431b6tfe69c2f528bed595@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812170521l25cd32bar964ae19c64a6c2d8@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812170541l7c557403te2eee2ea38fc8a1c@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
- Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> The relative scopes of quantifiers, logical
>> connectives and negation should be very straightforward.
>
> No, xorxes. I think it is straightforward. So do you. We just reach
> opposite conclusions about how it is to be parsed.
Which shows it is not so straightforward.
> The question in that thread was about how "na" and "na'e" differed.
> The question was answered (by both you (who ended up having to honestly
> write a second letter saying that your first statement, contradictory the
> CLL and presented unqualified to beginners in lojban, was in fact only
> "depends who you ask") and me), so it was time to move on.
Please read my first answer carefully again. It was not contradictory
to the CLL. I was very careful in avoiding the contentious issue until
someone brought it up explicitly.
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.