From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Sep 26 16:28:07 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_3); 26 Sep 2000 23:28:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 3549 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2000 23:28:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Sep 2000 23:28:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.53) by mta2 with SMTP; 26 Sep 2000 23:28:04 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:28:04 -0700 Received: from 200.42.117.153 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:28:04 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.117.153] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Get Much Ca$h ! Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:28:04 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Sep 2000 23:28:04.0597 (UTC) FILETIME=[6B4A7250:01C02811] From: "Jorge Llambias" la aulun cusku di'e >roda nirna roda >roda se nirna roda >roda selnirna roda >roda roda selnirna It is not clear what is the effect of quantifying the same variable twice in the same sentence. Either the second {da} has to be taken as a new variable, saying that each thing is a nerve/neuron of each thing, or the second quantifier has to be ignored, saying that each thing is a nerve/neuron of itself. >lo roda cu selnirna lo roda (???) {lo roda} is the same as {da}. At least one thing. >ro lo zasti cu selnirna ro lo zasti (!?) >ro lo zasti cu selnirna ro lo zasti soi vo'a vo'e The viceversa is already included in the first claim. >ro lo zasti cu selnirna vo'a I think this one means "of itself". co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.