From pycyn@aol.com Sat Apr 27 12:33:21 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 27 Apr 2002 19:33:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 5482 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2002 19:33:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Apr 2002 19:33:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r07.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.103) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Apr 2002 19:33:11 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.b6.aaff414 (3951) for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 15:32:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 15:32:51 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] cipja'o To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_b6.aaff414.29fc56e3_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_b6.aaff414.29fc56e3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/27/2002 8:59:56 AM Central Daylight Time, gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch writes: > da'i seems good for hypothesis. how about this (for the deductive pattern I > used) ? > > .i broda .inaja brodu > .i brode .inaja brodu > .ibrode .ija broda > .ida'i broda > .i brodu da'inai > da'i brode > .i brodu da'inai > .i brodu > OK. I would put it as .ibrode .ija broda .i da'i broda .i brodu da'inai .i broda .inaja brodu .i da'i brode .i brodu da'inai .i brode .inaja brodu .i brodu And the two conditonals could be eliminated (separation of cases rather than dilemma with conditional proofs) --part1_b6.aaff414.29fc56e3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/27/2002 8:59:56 AM Central Daylight Time, gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch writes:


da'i seems good for hypothesis. how about this (for the deductive pattern I
used) ?

.i broda .inaja brodu
.i brode .inaja brodu
.ibrode .ija broda
.ida'i broda
.i brodu da'inai
da'i brode
.i brodu da'inai
.i brodu


OK.  I would put it as


.ibrode .ija broda
.i da'i broda
.i brodu da'inai
.i broda .inaja brodu
.i da'i brode
.i brodu da'inai
.i brode .inaja brodu
.i brodu

And the two conditonals could be eliminated (separation of cases rather than dilemma with conditional proofs) --part1_b6.aaff414.29fc56e3_boundary--