From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Wed Apr 18 14:01:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 18 Apr 2001 21:01:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 86198 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2001 21:01:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Apr 2001 21:01:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Apr 2001 21:01:47 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.252.13.250]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010418210145.EVKV285.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 22:01:45 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Three more issues Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 22:00:52 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: From: "And Rosta" Michael: > >From: biomass@hobbiton.org > li'o > >Without using sets, how can "There are many rats" be said? (The book > >says it as > > ratcu so'imei "You-know-what is a rat multitude". I must say I find your Lojban style an abomination! Nothing but tanru with no overt sumti or logical apparatus. I think of Lojban as the linguistic equivalent of a technical diagram, while you turn it into the linguistic equivalent of a Turner painting of crepuscular mists. > >Issue C: > >Since tanru are (very) semantically ambiguous, how can we allow > >ourselves to define language concepts using tanru (e.g. , > >, etc? Those would mean extremely 'wide' concepts! > > > > using the lujvo from the start would have been a better idea, as > in BRIVLA & FU'IVLA, but it's easier for a neophyte to figure out a tanru. Only because they don't know the rafsi. The solution to that would be to use zei. --And.