From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Jan 29 02:24:10 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_1); 29 Jan 2003 10:24:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 38782 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2003 10:24:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2003 10:24:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2003 10:24:09 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18dpO5-0004Rs-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:24:09 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18dpNM-0004DI-00; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:23:24 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:23:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from vinland.freeshell.org ([207.202.214.139] helo=sdf.lonestar.org ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18dpKz-0003yy-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:20:58 -0800 Received: (from mbays@localhost) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6) id h0TAKhU11738; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:20:43 GMT Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:20:42 +0000 (UTC) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030128171648.035ff220@pop.east.cox.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 3942 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mbays@freeshell.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Martin Bays From: Martin Bays Reply-To: mbays@freeshell.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > > For the original question - union as an operator would probably be "jorne > bu". I'll let someone else figuire out intersection. > That's good... but we still need different operators for finite union and union over a set. I guess we could use {ma'o brajo'e bu} for the second, in keeping with the "read symbols as letterals idea", and use nu'a to get the corresponding selbri... But I think it would be nicer to make lujvo with the right definitions (as we did earlier), then use either na'u or ma'o ... bu to get the operators. --- #^t'm::>#shs>:#,_$1+9j9"^>h>" < v :>8*0\j" o'u" v" e'i" v".neta"^q> ;z,[; > > ^