From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Sep 27 13:38:48 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 20:38:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 3057 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 20:38:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 20:38:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n29.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.85) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 20:38:47 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.168] by n29.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2002 20:38:47 -0000 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:38:45 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <90.2c775efa.2ac61854@aol.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 758 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 pycyn cusku di'e > 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. If I understand correctly, "the usual language of formal logic" would have something like ~Fab This can be described as: 1- Negation in front of the predicate 2- Negation in front of the whole expression Lojban does: a~Fb, so as far as negation goes, it either follows the usual language of formal logic (by 1) or it does not follow the usual language of formal logic (by 2). >(But there are perfectly good logical systems tht do it > otherwise -- including especially ones that, like Lojban, are SVO rather than > VSO.) Right. mu'o mi'e xorxes