From rob@twcny.rr.com Wed Sep 12 21:18:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 13 Sep 2001 04:18:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 32074 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2001 04:17:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2001 04:17:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout6.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.125) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Sep 2001 04:17:05 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f8D4Fcw14427 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:15:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:15:37 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15hNvD-0000XV-00 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:16:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:16:15 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o (fwd) Message-ID: <20010913001615.B1780@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/1.3.20i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 04:49:16PM -0700, Nick NICHOLAS wrote: > lenu mi tavla do cu dicra lenu do gunka kei leka ce'u xi pa toljundyri'a > do ce'u xi re > > This is just a property with two slots, relating the interruptor and the > interruptee. This is no different to {simxu}. > > (And before anyone starts rolling their eyes about the subscripts, how > else would you make sure the two ce'u are not coreferential?) Wait a minute. I thought the whole point of inventing {ce'u} instead of using {ke'a} was that {ce'u} is never coreferential to other instances of {ce'u}. -- Rob Speer