From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Dec 12 16:01:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_2); 13 Dec 2001 00:01:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 33304 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2001 00:01:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2001 00:01:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.5) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Dec 2001 00:01:01 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:01:01 -0800 Received: from 200.69.14.35 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:01:01 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Logical translation request Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:01:01 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Dec 2001 00:01:01.0442 (UTC) FILETIME=[402A8E20:01C18369] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.14.35] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e >{logji} is strictly about the means by which a conclusion is reached >(really >strictly it does not even require that that method be a "good" one, only >that >it be a specifiable method). It says nothing about either premises, which >may be purest crap even if the method is good. And the use of this method is what Vulcans pride themselves on, isn't it? >so "seemed to >fit the situation by the standard of good logic applied to available >information" where the standard might be assumed to be the usual -- at >least >for Vulcan diplomats. Then {lojdra} might be good: drani fo le logji, correct by the standard of our Vulcan logic. Isn't that what "logical" means when applied to an action? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com