From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Sep 27 11:36:21 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 18:36:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 53310 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 18:36:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 18:36:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.79) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 18:36:21 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.155] by n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2002 18:36:21 -0000 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:36:21 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 575 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "jjllambias2000" X-Originating-IP: 200.49.74.2 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la jimc cusku di'e > Perhaps the real issue is that you have to reprogram your semantic analyser > for real logic. Mapping Lojban 1-1 into an illogical natlang is going to > mangle the result, particularly where "carbon units" are most sloppy in > their logic. Defining that {lo broda na brode} has to stand for {naku lo broda cu brode} and not for {lo broda naku cu brode} is neither logical nor illogical, it's just one possible convention. You can't say that one expression is more logical than the other. Each has its own logical meaning. mu'o mi'e xorxes