From ragnarok@pobox.com Mon Jun 11 17:58:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 12 Jun 2001 00:58:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 77767 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2001 00:57:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Jun 2001 00:57:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.246) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Jun 2001 00:57:58 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.34] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A91AA0FE006A; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:58:02 -0400 Reply-To: To: "Jorge Llambias" , Subject: RE: [lojban] Purpose of bridi Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:57:57 -0400 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) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" > An infinite string of i's is more or less nothing anyway. > {nei} is just one of those useless cmavo occupying the short > form that should have gone to something more useful... If .i nei says nothing, isn't it therefore the best lojbanization of 'no comment'? 'no comment' implies that there's a comment, you just won't say it. .i nei could mean 'I'm saying nothing' since it really means '.i .i .i .i .i' ad infinitum - in short, nothing.