Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

Well, xorxes has ideas about how Lojban *does* work, and, with minor exceptions, 
he has got it right.  So Lojban is his "other" language.  Sorry you think this 
discussion is bull-crap; it is trying to work out the ramifications of Lojvan 
being a logical language, dealing with both the logical part and the language 
part, and shooting for reasonable resolution where they appear to conflict.




----- Original Message ----
From: Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com>
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, November 2, 2010 9:55:04 AM
Subject: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

Oren, I answered your question some two or three times.


Where x2 of broda asks for {nu} and x1 of brode asks for {nu}, {.i
broda lo brode} is kosher, because lo brode already -is- an event. For
all other cases, an abstractor is necessary.

(barring all the other bullcrap/arguments going on right now)

xorxes, since you have all these ideas about how Lojban should work,
why don't you just make your -own- language and let it stand up to
Lojban?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.


      

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.