Subject: [lojban] Re: importing ro

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:21:32 -0000

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.