From pycyn@aol.com Fri Mar 01 12:31:39 2002
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: unknown); 1 Mar 2002 20:31:39 -0000
Received: (qmail 45550 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2002 20:31:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172)
  by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Mar 2002 20:31:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d06.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.38)
  by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2002 20:31:38 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.61.1bc1475e (16338)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:31:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <61.1bc1475e.29b13f27@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:31:35 EST
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautologies
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_61.1bc1475e.29b13f27_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001
X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra

--part1_61.1bc1475e.29b13f27_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 3/1/2002 12:31:24 PM Central Standard Time, 
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


> That's what I thought. But if a sequence of texts is a text,
> that means sequences are like lei, not like le'i, because
> a set of texts is not a text.
> 

But is a mass of text a text? A mass of dogs is not a dog.

cowan<? Perhaps one cannot use an article directly, but must use
>a LUhA.

Which one?>

LAhE? None obviously fit. 

<>Test question: when you write out what is said as {abu prami by} is the
>written form exactly the same or is it {a prami b}?

It's either exactly the same or it is {A prami B}, never {a prami b}.>

How exactly are you using the capitals? Are they abbreviations for the 
letteral words? This seems to add a new wrinkle to an already confusing (if 
not confused) situation, since capital letters have different letteral words.

<Why?

Because otherwise we would not be able to tell appart {mi}
from {MI} = {my.ibu}.>

But where did {MI} as short for {my ibu} come from? I didn't know you could 
abbreviate and certainly would have thought of this abbreviation.





--part1_61.1bc1475e.29b13f27_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2>In a message dated 3/1/2002 12:31:24 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">That's what I thought. But if a sequence of texts is a text,<BR>
that means sequences are like lei, not like le'i, because<BR>
a set of texts is not a text.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
But is a mass of text a text?&nbsp; A mass of dogs is not a dog.<BR>
<BR>
cowan&lt;?&nbsp; Perhaps one cannot use an article directly, but must use<BR>
&gt;a LUhA.<BR>
<BR>
Which one?&gt;<BR>
<BR>
LAhE? None obviously fit. <BR>
<BR>
&lt;&gt;Test question: when you write out what is said as {abu prami by} is the<BR>
&gt;written form exactly the same or is it {a prami b}?<BR>
<BR>
It's either exactly the same or it is {A prami B}, never {a prami b}.&gt;<BR>
<BR>
How exactly are you using the capitals? Are they abbreviations for the letteral words? This seems to add a new wrinkle to an already confusing (if not confused) situation, since capital letters have different letteral words.<BR>
<BR>
&lt;Why?<BR>
<BR>
Because otherwise we would not be able to tell appart {mi}<BR>
from {MI} = {my.ibu}.&gt;<BR>
<BR>
But where did {MI} as short for {my ibu} come from?&nbsp; I didn't know you could abbreviate and certainly would have thought of this abbreviation.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_61.1bc1475e.29b13f27_boundary--

