From rob@twcny.rr.com Fri Aug 31 11:06:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@telenet.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 31 Aug 2001 18:06:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 12854 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2001 18:01:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Aug 2001 18:01:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO telenet.net) (204.97.152.225) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Aug 2001 18:01:30 -0000 Received: from riff (ip-209-23-14-9.modem.logical.net [209.23.14.9]) by telenet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01229 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:01:28 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15csbK-0000ET-00 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:01:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:01:05 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] The Knights who forgot to say "ni!" Message-ID: <20010831140105.A832@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com Sender: Rob Speer From: Rob Speer On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 06:04:28PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > Rob: > > "whether D is a crook". Not every grammatical construct has to be "evaluated" > > to something shorter. > > In general, things *are* fully evaluated in Lojban. The times when you want > something that doesn't evaluate are special cases, that call for special > constructions, the ones that cause us so much perplexity. If you performed the kind of "evaluation" people are suggesting for {jei} all the time, then saying {la spat. gerku} would be instantly replaced by "true" and communicate nothing. -- Rob Speer