From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Sep 08 15:29:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 8 Sep 2001 22:29:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 11809 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2001 22:29:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Sep 2001 22:29:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.230) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Sep 2001 22:29:17 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 15:29:07 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.36 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 08 Sep 2001 22:29:07 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.36] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] ko'a klama .isecaubo mi djuno Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 22:29:07 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Sep 2001 22:29:07.0927 (UTC) FILETIME=[AC9CAE70:01C138B5] From: "Jorge Llambias" la xod cusku di'e > > That's the same as {mi claxu ro fipybirka} then. > >Why do you think this is clumsy? I think it's a great example of how to >express oneself in a Logical Language. It's not really what I mean when I say that I lack fins. Would you say, for example, pointing to a fin of a fish in a fishbowl, "I lack that fin"? Because that would be part of the {ro fipybirka} claim. I think that's icky more than clumsy. Anyway, And's {no da fipybirka mi} is clearly the best way to say it. >And does {mi claxu lo'e fipybirka} >leave open that {mi tolclaxu na'ebo lo'e fipybirka}? "I have other-than fins"? Of course. Why shouldn't it? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp