From rob@twcny.rr.com Sun Dec 23 23:30:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 24 Dec 2001 07:30:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 77885 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2001 07:30:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Dec 2001 07:30:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.122) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Dec 2001 07:30:27 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id fBO7URq13488 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 02:30:27 -0500 (EST) 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 ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 02:30:25 -0500 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16IPXn-0000Ky-00 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 02:29:07 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 02:29:06 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Binary Language Message-ID: <20011224072906.GA1216@twcny.rr.com> References: <8a.11772ee3.2957eb91@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2572649 X-Yahoo-Profile: squeekybobo On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 06:10:15AM -0000, thinkit41 wrote: > Decary? 10 arguments? I'm pretty unconvinced after 2, although > there may be a true ternary operator (none have given an example). You have chosen to ignore the example. Certainly you can get out of anything if you invent the appropriate words, but as pycyn points out, all you're doing is avoiding the fact that 'give' has three places (giver, gift, reciever) by making one word for 'give' and another for 'recieve', which between them cover the three places. You would also need separate idea words for "talk to" and "talk about", and "go to" and "go from", etc. How about concepts like "between" or "combine" where the x2 and x3 are interchangeable? Or would you simply leave those out of your language? What you would end up doing, it seems, is creating a separate idea for each combination of x1 and some other place, which is just a really inefficient way of doing tags. Hence I maintain that if you're not going to bother to use complete place structures, you shouldn't use them at all. -- la rab.spir noi se zdile