From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Nov 07 13:08:15 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 7 Nov 2002 21:08:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 27719 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2002 21:08:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Nov 2002 21:08:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2002 21:08:15 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:08:15 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:08:14 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: importing ro Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:08:14 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2002 21:08:15.0241 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9BF4F90:01C286A1] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la and cusku di'e >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. > >2. The universe is not empty. > >If we can agree on these two things -- & nobody has spoken out against >either of them -- then won't that allow this debate to evaporate into >irrelevance and inconsequentiality? 2 is not really needed for either position. 1 is our position, but pc has always spoken out against it. He does not approve of {ro broda cu brode = ro da ga na broda gi brode}, and I am convinced we will never reach an agreement about this. I once offered a salomonic compromise: leave the importingness of ro/no/su'o/me'i[ro] ambiguous, and use roma'u/noma'u/su'oma'u /me'ima'u for the importing quantifiers and roni'u/noni'u/ su'oni'u/me'ini'u for the non-importing ones when you want to emphasize the distinction. This means that everyone gets to use their favourite importingness unmarked, and whenever there is a possibility of confusion (hardly ever) there is always the possibility of being precise either way. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963