From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Jan 29 09:42:40 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 17:42:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 9557 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2003 17:42:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2003 17:42:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2003 17:42:29 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18dwEH-0002kx-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:42:29 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18dwDv-0002ka-00; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:42:07 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:42:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18dwDp-0002kR-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:42:01 -0800 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:42:01 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e Message-ID: <20030129174201.GZ28812@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030128171648.035ff220@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i X-archive-position: 3943 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 Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:20:42AM +0000, Martin Bays wrote: > 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. Dumb question: why are you guys adding bu? So you can use ma'o? I guess the idea is that we're verbally representing the visual symbol? I just find it very odd. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi