From rob@twcny.rr.com Wed Sep 26 14:18:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 26 Sep 2001 21:18:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 18339 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2001 21:18:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Sep 2001 21:18:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.169) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Sep 2001 21:18:52 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f8QLIno09795 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 17:18:49 -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 ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 17:17:34 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15mM47-0000JS-00 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 17:17:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 17:17:59 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] zipf computations & experimental cmavo Message-ID: <20010926171759.A1199@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <3BB22C20.2050008@reutershealth.com> <20010926161232.B781@twcny.rr.com> <3BB24124.4030906@reutershealth.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3BB24124.4030906@reutershealth.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 04:57:08PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Rob Speer wrote: > > >(For those who don't see the problem with symmetry: names are assignable. > >Pro-sumti are assignable. What gets assigned if you say {la djan. goi > >ko'a}?) > > If you know what ko'a means, then la djan. is defined to mean whatever > ko'a means. > If you know what la djan. means, then ko'a is defined to mean whatever > la djan. means. > If you don't know what either means, then they mean the same, but *what* > they mean will arrive in future. > If you know what both mean, and they already mean the same thing, the > goi-phrase is unnecessary. > If you know what both mean, and they mean different things, *bzzzzzt*, > semantic error. > > This is called "unification" in Prolog. Hmm. That actually makes sense. I think I'll stop touting asymmetrical goi. I suggest you put that on the Wiki, too, because I don't think it's clarified anywhere else. (Incidentally, I don't need 2 copies of each e-mail - just reply to the list.) -- la rab.spir noi gumri zo sarji