From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 27 13:23:51 2002
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 20:23:51 -0000
Received: (qmail 15342 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 20:23:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
  by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 20:23:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m01.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.4)
  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 20:23:50 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.90.2c775efa (17377)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:23:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <90.2c775efa.2ac61854@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:23:48 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_90.2c775efa.2ac61854_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_90.2c775efa.2ac61854_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 9/27/2002 1:37:41 PM Central Daylight Time, 
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<
> 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.
>>
As usual, "logical" applied to Lojban means "how to do it in the usual 
language of formal logic," which, in this case (as usually), is the standrad 
Lojban convention. (But there are perfectly good logical systems tht do it 
otherwise -- including especially ones that, like Lojban, are SVO rather than 
VSO.)

--part1_90.2c775efa.2ac61854_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2>In a message dated 9/27/2002 1:37:41 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
&lt;&lt;<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Defining that {lo broda na brode} has to stand for {naku lo broda <BR>
cu brode} and not for {lo broda naku cu brode} is neither logical <BR>
nor illogical, it's just one possible convention. You can't say <BR>
that one expression is more logical than the other. Each has its <BR>
own logical meaning.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
&gt;&gt;<BR>
As usual, "logical" applied to Lojban means "how to do it in the usual language of formal logic," which, in this case (as usually), is the standrad Lojban convention. (But there are perfectly good logical systems tht do it otherwise -- including especially ones that, like Lojban, are SVO rather than VSO.)</FONT></HTML>

--part1_90.2c775efa.2ac61854_boundary--

