From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Nov 25 08:01:21 2002
Return-Path: <lojban-out@lojban.org>
X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 25 Nov 2002 16:01:21 -0000
Received: (qmail 90912 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2002 16:01:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216)
  by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Nov 2002 16:01:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175)
  by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Nov 2002 16:01:20 -0000
Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05)
  id 18GLfk-0004wi-00
  for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:01:20 -0800
Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain)
  by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
  id 18GLfY-0004w9-00; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:01:08 -0800
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:01:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root)
  by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
  id 18GLfT-0004vu-00
  for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:01:04 -0800
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1])
  by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gAPG8ZWF069917
  for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:08:35 -0600 (CST)
  (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com)
Received: (from fracture@localhost)
  by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gAPG8Z16069916
  for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:08:35 -0600 (CST)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:08:35 -0600
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: Is .e == .ije?
Message-ID: <20021125160835.GA69822@allusion.net>
References: <001901c294a7$68b5f640$0300a8c0@avitallap> <3DE20F4B.3060000@bilkent.edu.tr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3DE20F4B.3060000@bilkent.edu.tr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-archive-position: 2699
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net
Precedence: bulk
X-list: lojban-list
X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
From: Jordan DeLong <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790
X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out

--4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:53:47PM +0200, robin wrote:
> Avital Oliver wrote:
> >Is <SUMTI1 e SUMTI2 cu SELBRI> always equivelant to <SUMTI1 cu SELBRI .i=
je
> >SUMTI2 cu SELBRI>?
> >
> >If so, then is <mi .e do mo> equivelant to <mi mo .ije do mo>?
>=20
> My intuition tells me that they are not equivalent, since {mo} implies a=
=20
> selbri which can be slotted into that place. If we translate it into=20
> logicalese, it would be {(I AND you) do-what}, or "What predicate can=20
> take the arguments "I" and "you"?"
[...]

It's equivalent after the respondant provides a predicate, though.
(They have to provide the same predicate for both people (or at
least that's what they're being asked for)).

--=20
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku

--4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE94ksDDrrilS51AZ8RAtZvAJ0RgXVlB+5HabAFRGING7szhCDBLACgpoyP
d5tSm8teyDcaG1orplenyZg=
=1m+5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY--