From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Nov 08 09:48:55 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 8 Nov 2002 17:48:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 86352 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2002 17:48:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Nov 2002 17:48:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2002 17:48:50 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18ADFS-0005cd-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:48:50 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18ADEt-0005cE-00; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:48:15 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:48:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18ADEo-0005c1-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:48:10 -0800 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:48:10 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: importing ro Message-ID: <20021108174810.GE22931@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20021108004315.GC22931@digitalkingdom.org> 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: 2541 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 Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 05:30:28PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > In practise, the current choice comes down to whether you want {ro > broda cu brode} to mean the same thing as {ro broda ga na broda gi > brode}. It really is up to us to choose; neither choice is > intrinsically right or wrong. Before it was whether {ro broda cu brode} meant the same as {ro da ga na broda gi brode}. I see those as rather different. In particular, {ro broda ga na broda gi brode}, which is true if pa broda cu na broda, which I don't like. 8) That *was* an error, right? -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.