From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Nov 06 18:40:43 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 7 Nov 2002 02:40:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 56606 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2002 02:40:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Nov 2002 02:40:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2002 02:40:42 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 189cb4-0000OA-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 18:40:42 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 189cat-0000Nt-00; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 18:40:31 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 06 Nov 2002 18:40:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 189cap-0000Nk-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 18:40:27 -0800 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gA72kAiR065964 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:46:16 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gA72kA8P065963 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:46:10 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:46:10 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: importing ro Message-ID: <20021107024610.GB65663@allusion.net> References: <3DC92B49.9060908@newmail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="QTprm0S8XgL7H0Dt" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 2480 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --QTprm0S8XgL7H0Dt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 01:59:00AM -0000, And Rosta wrote: [...] > As far as I can see, then, the book is contradictory (for entirely > pardonable reasons!). So we have two choices. >=20 > Q1. Does {(ro) da poi broda} entail {da broda}? > Q2. Is {na ku ro broda cu broda} equivalent to {su'o broda cu na ku=20 > brode}? >=20 > Option A Option B > Q1 NO YES > Q2 YES NO I think you have this entirely wrong -- see my response to your other message. To me it seems like our options are actually: Option A Option B Q1 YES NO Q2 YES NO If we take away import from universals we'd have to change the negation boundary rules because: naku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi (with import) !=3D su'o pavyseljirna naku blabi The latter claims there are unicorns in the world, the first doesn't. In order for these to be equal we need "ro da" ("no da", etc) to import. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --QTprm0S8XgL7H0Dt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9ydPyDrrilS51AZ8RAnbmAJ9MAtPF/yqwHiLeg9VN5ma1ucxBjQCgz169 WHgHKuBTAmGFhVR9fS+QauU= =NOk3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --QTprm0S8XgL7H0Dt--