From rob@twcny.rr.com Mon Oct 01 21:49:51 2001
Return-Path: <rob@twcny.rr.com>
X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 2 Oct 2001 04:48:01 -0000
Received: (qmail 33915 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 04:48:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 2 Oct 2001 04:48:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailout6.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.177)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 04:49:51 -0000
Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139])
  by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f924mqH04244
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 00:48:52 -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 <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 00:48:52 -0400
Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian))
  id 15oHUZ-0000bm-00
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Tue, 02 Oct 2001 00:49:15 -0400
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 00:49:15 -0400
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: The Pleasures of goi (was: zipf computations & experimental cmavo
Message-ID: <20011002004915.A1021@twcny.rr.com>
Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010930204315.00a9cf00@pop.cais.com> <9p8p4d+e7nd@eGroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9p8p4d+e7nd@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i
X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com
From: Rob Speer <rob@twcny.rr.com>

On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:49:33AM -0000, mark@kli.org wrote:
>(indeed, getting into the habit of saying {rodada'o} for 
> "everything" (instead of just {roda}) wouldn't be such a bad idea, 
> as {da} gets bound sometimes. It's wordier than it should be, but 
> better than nothing).

Why use {da} if you're just going to cancel it afterward, anyway? The fact that
'roda' and 'noda' create assignments which go unused (when used to mean
'everything' and 'nothing') has been bothering me for a while. Why are those
concepts not expressed by rozo'e/nozo'e, or maybe rozu'i/nozu'i?
-- 
la rab.spir
noi sarji zu'i


