From rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Fri Sep 22 23:06:26 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_2); 23 Sep 2000 06:06:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 17505 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2000 06:06:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Sep 2000 06:06:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) (129.97.134.11) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Sep 2000 06:06:26 -0000 Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24444 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 02:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009230609.CAA24444@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Get Much Ca$h ! In-Reply-To: Message from Pierre Abbat of "Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:31:46 EDT." <00092213350117.00920@neofelis> Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 02:09:05 -0400 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Pierre Abbat writes: >On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Taral wrote: >>> As to the missing attitudinal, I don't have the hang of attitudinals yet and >>> was too busy looking up other words. >> >>Actually, "me" is not an attitudinal. It changes sumti into simple >>selbri: x1 is one of the referents of "[sumti]". It turns out, however, >>that I was wrong about its use there. :) > >Sorry for the confusion. I was answering Robin's message. I no longer have a copy of my mail (dammit), but I don't remember suggesting that you were missing an attitudinal. I _do_ remember bitching, in general, that there existed no attitudinal for annoyance. -Robin -- http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. Despite not getting very emotional about it, the fact that quantum entanglement doesn't allow transmission of information is probably the most profound dissapointment I've ever experienced. -- RLPowell