From pycyn@aol.com Wed Sep 05 05:47:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 5 Sep 2001 12:47:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 4782 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2001 12:46:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Sep 2001 12:46:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2001 12:46:21 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.23.10c7896e (1839) for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:46:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <23.10c7896e.28c77892@aol.com> Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:46:10 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_23.10c7896e.28c77892_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_23.10c7896e.28c77892_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (I've got to start doing these at 3am when I am awake (unwillingly), not at 8pm when I am falling asleep) In a message dated 9/4/2001 8:30:01 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > >{la bab dunli la bil lo ni ce'u clano}, {la dubias frica la tclsys lo mamte > >be ce'u} > > That would require {la dubias frica la tclsys la babras}. It doesn't > sound right to me. > > The same goes for the others: {la bab dunli la bil li xapi'emu}? > No, it wouldn't, any more than the {ka} requires that they differ in {le ka le babras mamte la dubias}. The 3rd place is a *function* -- from people to truth values in one case, from people to people in the other -- and dubias and tclsys differ precisely in that they give different value as arguments to these functions. So, if you accept {la dubias frica la tclsys lo ka makau mamte ce'u} or specifically {la dubias frica la tclsys le ka la babras mamte ce'u} then you have to accept {la dubias frica la tclsys le mamte be ce'u} on the same principle. Of course, I am not sure you completely accept the beginning stages of this argument. --part1_23.10c7896e.28c77892_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (I've got to start doing these at 3am when I am awake (unwillingly), not at
8pm when I am falling asleep)

In a message dated 9/4/2001 8:30:01 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


>{la bab dunli la bil lo ni ce'u clano}, {la dubias frica la tclsys lo mamte
>be ce'u}

That would require {la dubias frica la tclsys la babras}. It doesn't
sound right to me.

The same goes for the others: {la bab dunli la bil li xapi'emu}?


No, it wouldn't, any more than the {ka} requires that they differ in {le ka
le babras mamte la dubias}.  The 3rd place is a *function* -- from people to
truth values in one case, from people to people in the other -- and dubias
and tclsys differ precisely in that they give different value as arguments to
these functions.  So, if you accept
{la dubias frica la tclsys lo ka makau mamte ce'u} or specifically {la dubias
frica la tclsys le ka la babras mamte ce'u} then you have to accept {la
dubias frica la tclsys le mamte be ce'u} on the same principle.  Of course, I
am not sure you completely accept the beginning stages of this argument. --part1_23.10c7896e.28c77892_boundary--