From ragnarok@pobox.com Mon Mar 03 15:51:18 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 3 Mar 2003 23:51:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 87842 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 23:51:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2003 23:51:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 23:51:17 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18pziH-0003Kq-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:51:17 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18pziD-0003KT-00; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:51:13 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:51:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18pzi7-0003Jz-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:51:07 -0800 Received: from craig [209.42.200.67] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id AA4A15FA0172; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 18:50:34 -0500 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: The Any thread Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:50:58 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20030303233954.GA20346@allusion.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.67] X-archive-position: 4312 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ragnarok@pobox.com Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "Craig" Reply-To: ragnarok@pobox.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> >{lo} is not defined in traditional Lojban the way you want it. >> >> Yes it is. >No it isn't. mi nitcu lo mikce == Ex(Mx & Nmx). There is no >question that this is the definition given in CLL. Traditional >lojban == CLL. First, I wish to thank Jordan for trying to remove us from the world of unbacked assertions. Second, I wish to note that in each case, the 'unbacked' assertion was a conclusion to what was above it. It is silly to answer a conclusion to a message without responding to its content. Third, the fact that anyone disagrees about the meaning of {mi nitcu lo mikce} means that there *is* a question. So let's avoid the unbacked assertions. Now, I know you're about to make an argumentum ad populum here (or at least most people would) and claim that there are only two of us. To this I say that I don't matter at all - I'm not good enough at Lojban to be an authority here - but that I would list xod among the experts. That the experts are divided tells us simply that this is a question, and we should continue to discuss it until either they agree or the BPFK makes it irrelevant by determining that future use of lo will do X. Fourth, traditional Lojban == Baseline. This includes CLL, but is by no means limited to it.