From pycyn@aol.com Tue Mar 13 13:41:42 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 13 Mar 2001 21:41:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 75792 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2001 21:41:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Mar 2001 21:41:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.161) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Mar 2001 21:41:32 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.12.a07ad28 (14382) for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:41:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <12.a07ad28.27dfee04@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:41:24 EST
Subject: Re: [lojban] Numbers
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_12.a07ad28.27dfee04_boundary"
Content-Disposition: Inline
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10501
From: pycyn@aol.com

--part1_12.a07ad28.27dfee04_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

NIce starting point. It is hard to object to anything there. I gather that 
my move from this is to put some at least of the indefinites into pre-sign 
and that Lojbab want to put them into digit. We can, of course, accomodate 
both of these by insisting that the indefinite digits are never first, 
prefixing {no} if need be. It also seems that one or the other of these 
additions would largely take care of the other, though maybe not quite 
(experiments?) and I admit that the only indef I see immediate virtue in 
moving over is {so'a}. I suppose we are in the midst of those damned flowers 
blooming again, but at least it seems that we have some grounds for 
proceeding with our various schemes, as long as we are clear which one a 
given text is working with.

--part1_12.a07ad28.27dfee04_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=2>NIce starting point. &nbsp;It is hard to object to anything there. &nbsp;I gather that 
<BR>my move from this is to put some at least of the indefinites into pre-sign 
<BR>and that Lojbab want to put them into digit. &nbsp;We can, of course, accomodate 
<BR>both of these by insisting that the indefinite digits are never first, 
<BR>prefixing {no} if need be. &nbsp;It also seems that one or the other of these 
<BR>additions would largely take care of the other, though maybe not quite 
<BR>(experiments?) and I admit that the only indef I see immediate virtue in 
<BR>moving over is {so'a}. &nbsp;I suppose we are in the midst of those damned flowers 
<BR>blooming again, but at least it seems that we have some grounds for 
<BR>proceeding with our various schemes, as long as we are clear which one a 
<BR>given text is working with.</FONT></HTML>

--part1_12.a07ad28.27dfee04_boundary--

