From xod@sixgirls.org Wed Aug 29 12:36:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 19:36:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 8945 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 19:35:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 19:35:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 19:35:27 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7TJZQd09548 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 15:35:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 15:35:26 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] The Knights who forgot to say "ni!" In-Reply-To: <20010829152624.C740@twcny.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Rob Speer wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 01:38:40PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > > If they are equivalent (I'd like to see somebody argue that they are not!) > > why not use jei as it's shorter? > > People _have_ been arguing that they are not equivalent. > They take the words "truth value" in the ma'oste extremely literally and say > that this means the entire jei-clause is replaced with 'true' or 'false'. > > Of course, I think that interpretation is a load of {malfesti}. And you're right. It turns the Book's example sentence into nonsense: mi ba jdice le jei dy. zekri gasnu I will decide whether D. is a criminal If D. happens to be a crook, this sentence means "I will decide true"? What an uncooperative interpretation! ----- "It is not enough that an article is new and useful. The Constitution never sanctioned the patenting of gadgets. [...] It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures." -- Supreme Court Justice Douglas, 1950