From pycyn@aol.com Sun Sep 22 17:17:06 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 23 Sep 2002 00:17:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 91868 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2002 00:17:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Sep 2002 00:17:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d04.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.36) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 2002 00:17:05 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.a4.2c8483d1 (4012) for ; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 20:17:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 20:17:00 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a4.2c8483d1.2abfb77c_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_a4.2c8483d1.2abfb77c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/22/2002 4:18:04 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > I may have acknowledged that your position is as consistent as any > other choice of import assignment. The way you present it makes > it look as if I had acknowledged it being better, something I do > not now and did not at that time consider to be true. >> Not better, just correct for Lojban (rarely the same, in your view). Do you really, by the way, want {ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode} to be true even if there is nothing in the world at all? --part1_a4.2c8483d1.2abfb77c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/22/2002 4:18:04 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<

I may have acknowledged that your position is as consistent as any
other choice of import assignment. The way you present it makes
it look as if I had acknowledged it being better, something I do
not now and did not at that time consider to be true.

>>
Not better, just correct for Lojban (rarely the same, in your view).
Do you really, by the way, want {ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode} to be true even if there is nothing in the world at all? --part1_a4.2c8483d1.2abfb77c_boundary--