From pycyn@aol.com Sat Jun 16 15:15:17 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 16 Jun 2001 22:15:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 24923 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2001 22:15:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Jun 2001 22:15:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m07.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.162) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2001 22:15:16 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.4a.1738bfd1 (1759) for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:15:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4a.1738bfd1.285d3468@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:15:04 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] hope
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_4a.1738bfd1.285d3468_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519
From: pycyn@aol.com

--part1_4a.1738bfd1.285d3468_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 6/16/2001 7:25:40 AM Central Daylight Time, 
lojbab@lojban.org writes:


> Except that .i is legal at the beginning of a discourse (we built it into 
> the grammar). Partly because some discourses are implicit continuations of 
> 
I was careful not to say ungrammatical. It is bad communication ethics, 
since there is not previous implict conversation. And I don't see the scope 
issue -- but I am having some trouble with some of these proposals, 
apparently.

--part1_4a.1738bfd1.285d3468_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 6/16/2001 7:25:40 AM Central Daylight Time, 
<BR>lojbab@lojban.org writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Except that .i is legal at the beginning of a discourse (we built it into 
<BR>the grammar). &nbsp;Partly because some discourses are implicit continuations of 
<BR>others, and partly because it resolved some scope issues like this one.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>I was careful not to say ungrammatical. &nbsp;It is bad communication ethics, 
<BR>since there is not previous implict conversation. &nbsp;And I don't see the scope 
<BR>issue -- but I am having some trouble with some of these proposals, 
<BR>apparently.</FONT></HTML>

--part1_4a.1738bfd1.285d3468_boundary--

