Subject: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e

From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:42:01 -0800

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