From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Nov 07 10:42:56 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 18:42:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 23687 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2002 18:42:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Nov 2002 18:42:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2002 18:42:55 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 189rcE-0005rP-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:42:54 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 189rc9-0005r6-00; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:42:49 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:42:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 189rc4-0005qx-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:42:44 -0800 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:42:44 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: importing ro Message-ID: <20021107184244.GC22843@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 2492 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 02:35:20PM +0000, And Rosta wrote: > If we settle on the latter option -- the one without restriction on > quantifier range & with implicit rewriting to ganai-gi.ge-gi -- then > most of the dispute goes away, and we end up with the position that is > preferred by everybody who has indicated their preferences -- me, > xorxes, Adam, Jordan, & probably others. > > It seems to me that we might all be able to agree on this for once and > for all: > > 1. Contrary to what Woldy says, > ro broda cu brode > = ro da poi broda cu brode > = ro da ga na broda gi brode > This would require a correction to 16.8 or wherever it is that Woldy > says these mean different things. I'm not ready to throw down on this yet; while I do, believe it or not, have the formal training to do so, it's been a while and following this discussion has been hard for me. It would help me if someone would describe the other alternative in the format above. BTW, given sitting down with the truth tables, I'm pretty sure I agree with the above as well, but I don't want to formally throw down until I see the other option and read the thread a bit better. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ http://www.lojban.org/ la lojban. jai curmi roda .einai to ku'i so'ada mukti le nu co'a darlu le'o -- RLP I'm a *male* Robin.