From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Sep 05 13:29:01 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 5 Sep 2002 20:28:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 47650 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2002 20:28:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Sep 2002 20:28:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.159) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Sep 2002 20:29:01 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 13:29:01 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 20:29:00 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] termsets Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 20:29:00 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Sep 2002 20:29:01.0107 (UTC) FILETIME=[DE8CB830:01C2551A] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la djan cusku di'e >Invent Yourself scripsit: > > > Termsets, rarely used, few understand them. In marking simultaneous > > claims, how are they different from ".e"? > >{A, B} love {C, D} means that A loves C and B loves D. That corresponds to Lojban jo'u: abu jo'u by prami cy jo'u dy Termsets group things differently: nu'i ge abuboi cy gi by.boi dy prami {A C} and {B D} love. A more natural example in English would be: A gives {B to C} and {D to F}. abu dunda nu'ige by boi cy gi dy boi fy Each term in a termset fills a different place. Does the fact that not even John Cowan can get this straight prove that termsets are unusable and should be avoided? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com