From thanatos@dim.com Sat Feb 16 14:56:06 2002
Return-Path: <thanatos@dim.com>
X-Sender: thanatos@dim.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 16 Feb 2002 22:56:06 -0000
Received: (qmail 55350 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2002 22:56:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171)
  by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Feb 2002 22:56:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO supernova.dimensional.com) (206.124.0.11)
  by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2002 22:56:06 -0000
Received: from p44.3c04.pm.dimcom.net (p44.3c04.pm.dimcom.net [206.124.3.204])
  by supernova.dimensional.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g1GMu4X10908
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 15:56:05 -0700 (MST)
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Non-logical AND in Tanru?
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 16:01:31 -0700
Message-ID: <ph4t6u0de79uq5cjhgrv594nb89555d124@4ax.com>
References: <16c.8f0d896.299fcc77@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <16c.8f0d896.299fcc77@aol.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: EWC <thanatos@dim.com>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=45881577
X-Yahoo-Profile: thandim2000

On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 09:53:43 EST, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
>But the=20
>ones I was mainly focusing on were ones like {cmalu xanto} where the objec=
t=20
>that is the {cmalu} cannot be isolated from the {xanto}, without problems;=
=20

Well, in a contrived example, if we were sorting our menagerie into two
groups, one with a large number of total animals and one with a small
number of total animals, the way in which the elephant is cmalu may be
that it belongs to the smaller group.=20=20

>that is, the broda does have its places filled implicitly but not in=20
>isolation. I took the isolation claim to be the likely next step in your=
=20
>reasoning and wanted to stop it beforehand.

The places of broda are filled by zo'e, which draws from a larger
context than just the current bridi, as does the co'e implicit in the
tanru. We're still claiming {ta poi xanto cu co'e zo'e poi cmalu}
implicitly with {ta cmalu xanto}, though.

--=20
EWC