From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Nov 08 14:21:05 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 22:21:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 41273 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2002 22:21:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Nov 2002 22:21:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2002 22:21:04 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18AHUu-0005xg-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 14:21:04 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18AHUF-0005we-00; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 14:20:23 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 08 Nov 2002 14:20:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin02.spray.se ([212.78.193.8] helo=mrin02.st1.spray.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18AHUA-0005wM-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 14:20:18 -0800 Received: from lmin04.st1.spray.net (lmin04.st1.spray.net [212.78.202.104]) by mrin02.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA08F24F634 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 23:19:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-70-223.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.70.223]) by lmin04.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A516B1C0D7 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 23:19:39 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: importing ro Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:21:32 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20021108174810.GE22931@digitalkingdom.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 2552 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Robin: > 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? Sorry -- I believe you'd call it a "brainfart". Yes, I meant "whether you want {ro broda cu brode} to mean the same thing as {ro da ga na broda gi brode}". Mind you, it turns out that I was overhasty in saying that, as Jordan subsequently pointed out. --And.