From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed May 10 09:09:23 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18466 invoked from network); 10 May 2000 16:09:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 May 2000 16:09:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO qg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.27) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 May 2000 16:09:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 4166 invoked from network); 10 May 2000 16:09:22 -0000 Received: from n4.onelist.org (HELO hk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.43) by iqg.egroups.com with SMTP; 10 May 2000 16:09:22 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: jjllambias@hotmail.com Received: from [10.1.10.34] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 May 2000 16:09:22 -0000 Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:09:14 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] centripetality: subset vs component Message-ID: <8fc1ja+6k85@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000510100635.00ace6b0@127.0.0.1> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 659 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Jorge Llambias" la lojbab cusku di'e > the convention has > to go one way or the other, and barring the relevance/elision > criterion, I don't see many reasons to choose one over the other. That there exists the ISO standard is a fairly strong reason, too. The elision criterion can go both ways. There are many elisions from the left in Lojban (prenex, tenses, quantifiers, x1, ke, and I'm sure I'm leaving out some). In any case, since the book says nothing on the subject, there seems to be no baseline, and so everyone can use their preferred convention. The one with most usage will win, what could be a better way to settle it than that? co'o mi'e xorxes