From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Sep 22 18:36:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 23 Sep 2002 01:36:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 49471 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2002 01:36:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Sep 2002 01:36:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.26) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 2002 01:36:19 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 18:36:19 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.55 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 01:36:19 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 01:36:19 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Sep 2002 01:36:19.0582 (UTC) FILETIME=[9DC279E0:01C262A1] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.55] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e ><< > > 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). I did not accept that it was correct for Lojban. Only that it would not be logically inconsistent. But I consider it a bad choice, because it is more complicated, and thus incorrect for Lojban in that sense. >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? Yes, vacuously true. I can't imagine a context where it would come up, though. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com