From pycyn@aol.com Fri Apr 20 10:22:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 20 Apr 2001 17:22:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 91457 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2001 17:22:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Apr 2001 17:22:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r15.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.69) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Apr 2001 17:22:18 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id r.9c.db1fc11 (9725) for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9c.db1fc11.2811ca32@aol.com> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:21:54 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:not only To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9c.db1fc11.2811ca32_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_9c.db1fc11.2811ca32_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/19/2001 6:01:32 PM Central Daylight Time, lojbab@lojban.org writes: > As originally proposed, we were looking for a way to express "only", and > Nick, I believe it was came up with a rather longwinded logical form for > one kind of "only", which po'o was to be an abbreviation of (it may have > been the formalization of "[sumti] and no other", but someone looking many > years back in the list archives can surely find the original > discussion). Thus, as a discursive, it resembles various markers of > reflexives, and the word for "etc." that are short forms for logical > expressions for which the necessary information is present to construct the > logical form (if needed), but for which it usually is a pain to actually do > Well, the logical form is not appreciably more longwinded than the one for "all," just slightly more confusing. But as for it being a discursive, the other things noted see to belong KOhA or SE, not UI. --part1_9c.db1fc11.2811ca32_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/19/2001 6:01:32 PM Central Daylight Time,
lojbab@lojban.org writes:



As originally proposed, we were looking for a way to express "only", and
Nick, I believe it was came up with a rather longwinded logical form for
one kind of "only", which po'o was to be an abbreviation of (it may have
been the formalization of "[sumti] and no other", but someone looking many
years back in the list archives can surely find the original
discussion).  Thus, as a discursive, it resembles various markers of
reflexives, and the word for "etc." that are short forms for logical
expressions for which the necessary information is present to construct the
logical form (if needed), but for which it usually is a pain to actually do
it.




Well, the logical form is not appreciably more longwinded than the one for
"all," just slightly more confusing.  But as for it being a discursive, the
other things noted see to belong KOhA or SE, not UI. --part1_9c.db1fc11.2811ca32_boundary--