From xod@sixgirls.org Fri May 25 21:10:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 26 May 2001 04:10:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 30342 invoked from network); 26 May 2001 04:10:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 May 2001 04:10:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta3 with SMTP; 26 May 2001 04:10:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4Q4A3L26309 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 00:10:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 00:10:02 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: loi (was Re: [lojban] Rosetta Project Genesis translation) In-Reply-To: <4a.1650a06f.283fdc7d@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Fri, 25 May 2001 pycyn@aol.com wrote: > The problem with using {lo'i} is that sets have a very limited range of > activities -- they can't carry pianos, for example, nor drink beer. About > all they can do is have members, include or overlap or be included in other > sets, and have cardinalities. Not very useful, as xorxes keeps pointing out. > We no doubt could develop some idioms involving sets, but none have achieved > much currency -- and masses do seem to cover the most tempting cases. I suspect set usage could provide a more elegant way to say "only". ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!