From biomass@hobbiton.org Wed Apr 18 14:37:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: biomass@hobbiton.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 18 Apr 2001 21:37:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 61214 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2001 21:37:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Apr 2001 21:37:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO elrond.hobbiton.org) (216.161.236.97) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Apr 2001 21:37:40 -0000 Received: from hobbiton.org (biomass@thorin.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.98]) by elrond.hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3ILedw02425 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:40:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (biomass@localhost) by hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3ILZ7H16042 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:35:07 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:35:06 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: biomass@thorin To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [lojban] Three more issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Avital Oliver On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, And Rosta wrote: > John to Avital: > > > I mean, is lo valsi, isn't it? > > No. > I think this is an unresolved issue, whether or > not we simplify the claim to " cu valsi" > (or, equivalently, "The Beatles cu prenu"). The > unresolved issue is whether pa valsi is a single > word (in which case the claim is false) or a single > amount of wordage (in which case the claim is true). > I guess usage favours the former. I don't seem to understand. Why aren't several words cu valsi? What does it matter what a pa valsi is? SOmething told me that Lojban does not specify number if not specifically specified (that sounded like crap). ???