From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Mar 13 07:39:09 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 13 Mar 2001 15:39:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 81769 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2001 15:39:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2001 15:39:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.184) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Mar 2001 16:40:12 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 07:39:08 -0800 Received: from 200.41.247.35 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 15:39:07 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.35] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] "Pipes" and other computer terms Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 15:39:07 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Mar 2001 15:39:08.0159 (UTC) FILETIME=[BE10B8F0:01C0ABD3] From: "Jorge Llambias" la camgusmis cusku di'e >But you could have fun with the difference between > >le pu'u datnyfle zoi iu. ps -aef iu. zoi iu. grep root iu. > >and > >le nu datnyfle zoi iu. ps -aef iu. zoi iu. grep root iu. > >which I'm thinking would effectively be lazy and non-lazy execution, >respectively. But there is no difference. Or rather, {pu'u} is a special case of {nu}, it does not contrast with it. {pu'u}, {za'i}, {zu'o} and {mu'e} are all {nu}, so by using {nu} you don't exclude the {pu'u} interpretation. You can describe it as a process if you are considering all the steps that constitute the flow from its origin to its destination, you can describe it as an activity if you see it as a continuous action, a state if you contrast it with the non-flowing state as two binary options, and an achievment if all you care about is its result, either it flowed or it didn't flow. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.