From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Sep 21 19:26:10 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 22 Sep 2002 02:26:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 86791 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2002 02:26:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Sep 2002 02:26:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.182) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Sep 2002 02:26:10 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 19:26:10 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.18 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 02:26:10 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 02:26:10 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Sep 2002 02:26:10.0558 (UTC) FILETIME=[6A1B71E0:01C261DF] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.18] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e ><< > > There never was a difference between {pa lo su'o} and {pa lo ro}, > > so "any more" does not apply. > >> >True, only one thought to hold between {lo ro} and {lo su'o}. Sorry, I don't understand that sentence. >It hasn't come up because, as you well know after hammering away at it, >there >is now no non-importing {ro} I don't remember it being settled and decided (by whom?) the way you want. For me {ro} is non-importing. >(though I cannot remember what the corresponding >nonimporting expression is, it never being one I need). So {ro lo ro >pavyseljirna cu blabi} is just false in this world (and its denial >probably >is too). So for you {ga broda ginai broda} can be false for selected broda? For me it's a tautology. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx