From pycyn@aol.com Sun Dec 03 15:03:29 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 3 Dec 2000 23:03:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 28153 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2000 23:03:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2000 23:03:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r12.mail.aol.com) (152.163.225.66) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Dec 2000 00:04:33 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.c9.af2c6a3 (16335) for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 18:03:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 18:03:15 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] de-, un- ce zo'e (was: common words) To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c9.af2c6a3.275c2b33_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 171 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_c9.af2c6a3.275c2b33_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/3/2000 3:37:49 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > >None of the obvious seem quite right: > >{tol} has been examined already, > > And summarily dismissed? I want a re-count! > Well, when I thought about it later, it seemed to me that "x is the cleartext from cryptext y under encryption z" is the polar opposite of "x is the cryptext from cleartext y under encryption z" within the scale of texts involved in encryption z, and so {tol} may just be right here. I had only meant that something had been said about it already and I had nothing to add, not that it was dismissed, however. But, come to that, what about selmifygau? --part1_c9.af2c6a3.275c2b33_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/3/2000 3:37:49 PM Central Standard Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:



>None of the obvious seem quite right:
>{tol} has been examined already,

And summarily dismissed? I want a re-count!



Well, when I thought about it later, it seemed to me that "x is the cleartext
from cryptext y under encryption z" is the polar opposite of "x is the
cryptext from cleartext y under encryption z" within the scale of texts
involved in encryption z, and so {tol} may just be right here.  I had only
meant that something had been said about it already and I had nothing to add,
not that it was dismissed, however.

But, come to that, what about selmifygau?
--part1_c9.af2c6a3.275c2b33_boundary--