From pycyn@aol.com Sat Aug 03 11:24:35 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 3 Aug 2002 18:24:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 14675 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2002 18:24:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2002 18:24:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Aug 2002 18:24:33 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.39.2b128e95 (3948) for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 14:24:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39.2b128e95.2a7d79d9@aol.com> Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 14:24:25 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: LogFest Phone Game results To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_39.2b128e95.2a7d79d9_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_39.2b128e95.2a7d79d9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/2/2002 7:33:17 PM Central Daylight Time, araizen@newmail.net writes: > -- it is the members of the pairs, not of > the mass > > of people, that can finish eachother's sentences. (probably, each > one > > individually, {ro jufra} rather than the set all at once -- the > ends of sets > > can't be said). > > The original was "lo'e jufra", which is a Llambian archetype, not a > set. > Oops! Yes it was. Sorry! Though I am not sure what a Llambian archetype is, different from the official typical (and, of course, I'm not perfectly clear what that is either). Either one is better than {ro}, since that will probably be false. Thanks. --part1_39.2b128e95.2a7d79d9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/2/2002 7:33:17 PM Central Daylight Time, araizen@newmail.net writes:


-- it is the members of the pairs, not of
the mass
> of people, that can finish eachother's sentences.  (probably, each
one
> individually, {ro jufra} rather than the set all at once -- the
ends of sets
> can't be said).

The original was "lo'e jufra", which is a Llambian archetype, not a
set.


Oops! Yes it was.  Sorry!  Though I am not sure what a Llambian archetype is, different from the official typical (and, of course, I'm not perfectly clear what that is either).  Either one is better than {ro}, since that will probably be false.
Thanks. --part1_39.2b128e95.2a7d79d9_boundary--