From pycyn@aol.com Wed Aug 29 08:22:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 15:22:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 33297 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 15:18:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 15:18:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.98) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 15:18:40 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.fe.b6829f8 (4353) for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:18:26 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Another stab at a Record on ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_fe.b6829f8.28be61c2_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_fe.b6829f8.28be61c2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/29/2001 12:04:46 AM Central Daylight Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > However, precious few if any writers in the existing > corpus used ka for "ce'u broda ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u BAI ce'u". Such a > monstrosity was never mentioned in the Book, and it is to my knowledge a > complete innovation. > Implicit in the notion of {ka} and the lambda calculus: it is the direct name of the referent of {broda}. Mentioning it is no more an innovation than mentioning that {du'u} is a {ce'u}-less {ka}. Good point. I apologize for the "all-{ce'u}" extrapolation, and stick with the rest of the summary. --part1_fe.b6829f8.28be61c2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/29/2001 12:04:46 AM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes:


However, precious few if any writers in the existing
corpus used ka for "ce'u broda ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u BAI ce'u". Such a
monstrosity was never mentioned in the Book, and it is to my knowledge a
complete innovation.


Implicit in the notion of {ka} and the lambda calculus: it is the direct name
of the referent of {broda}.  Mentioning it is no more an innovation than
mentioning that {du'u} is a {ce'u}-less {ka}.

<Given all that we have figured out at this point and the widespread
agreement we have achieved, I'd rather not see ourselves distracted by
oddball suggestions that are far afield of our consensus-momentum>

Good point.  I apologize for the "all-{ce'u}" extrapolation, and stick with
the rest of the summary. --part1_fe.b6829f8.28be61c2_boundary--