From pycyn@aol.com Thu Nov 01 16:57:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 2 Nov 2001 00:57:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 68116 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2001 00:57:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Nov 2001 00:57:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Nov 2001 00:57:18 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.14d.35d9867 (3736) for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 19:57:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <14d.35d9867.29134963@aol.com> Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 19:57:07 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_14d.35d9867.29134963_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_14d.35d9867.29134963_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 11/1/2001 5:28:48 PM Central Standard Time,=20 jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > How did prototype chat move from {loi}, where it lived for a couple=20 > >decades, > >to {lo'e}? >=20 > I think it was when collective chat took over {loi}. >=20 I would have thought that was enough to get rid of Mr. Rabbit for once and= =20 all. Wrong, I suppose. It's a cute picture, but doesn't seem to ahve any= =20 intereting content. Thanks for the explanation though. This assumes a certain reading of {lo}; is it guaranteed? (So many things=20 have been put up for grabs lately, it is wise to check -- though xorxes may= =20 not be the right one to ask, being a major putter-upper). Oh dear, did that one finally win out? Pity (but dead, so no harm done). Did that one win finally too -- more pity. Happily the claim is not=20 establsihed (to put it mildly) for Lojban. Strange blessing, to get rid of the one gadri we know anything solid about = --=20 and the one all the others depend on. <{le} is the same for both.> True enough, and aren't we beginning to see (even more) reasons to regret i= t. --part1_14d.35d9867.29134963_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 11/1/2001 5:28:48 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias= @hotmail.com writes:


How did prototype chat mo= ve from {loi}, where it lived for a couple=20
>decades,
>to {lo'e}?

I think it was when collective chat took over {loi}.


I would have thought that was enough to get rid of Mr. Rabbit for once = and all.  Wrong, I suppose.  It's a cute picture, but doesn't see= m to ahve any intereting content.  Thanks for the explanation though.

<The correspondence with Loglan goes something like this:

Lojban: lo=A0=A0 le=A0=A0 loi("mass")=A0 lo'e=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 lo'i("s= et")
Loglan: --=A0=A0 le=A0=A0 leu("set")=A0=A0 lo("mass")=A0=A0 ----

Loglan doesn't need Lojban {lo} because it uses bare quantifiers
for that (Lojban does this too, so we don't really need it either).>

This assumes a certain reading of {lo}; is it guaranteed? (So many thin= gs have been put up for grabs lately, it is wise to check -- though xorxes = may not be the right one to ask, being a major putter-upper).

<In Loglan "sets" can carry logs, in Lojban "masses" do this.>

Oh dear, did that one finally win out?  Pity (but dead, so no harm= done).

<Loglan's "mass" is Mr Rabbit, which corresponds to Lojban's {lo'e}.= >
Did that one win finally too -- more pity.  Happily the claim is n= ot establsihed (to put it mildly) for Lojban.

<Loglan is blessed by not having a gadri for mathematical sets.>
Strange blessing, to get rid of the one gadri we know anything solid ab= out -- and the one all the others depend on.

<{le} is the same for both.>
True enough, and aren't we beginning to see (even more) reasons to regr= et it. --part1_14d.35d9867.29134963_boundary--