From pycyn@aol.com Sun Jul 22 17:48:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 23 Jul 2001 00:48:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 78497 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2001 00:47:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Jul 2001 00:47:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Jul 2001 00:47:57 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.41.e7d0486 (3928) for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 20:47:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <41.e7d0486.288cce38@aol.com> Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 20:47:52 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: kargu mleca To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_41.e7d0486.288cce38_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_41.e7d0486.288cce38_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit One of the joys of a logical language is that it follows the logic. the problems of opaque contexts is one where, by and large, this has been done, though there is still a lot of area where folks are undecided or unclear just how it is done. As lojbab notes, different gismu have different logics and so different solutions are called for. I for one don't think that {lo'e} is a solution, since, while there always is such a thing (if there are any critters of the type involved at all), by definition, it may very well NOT be what I want, need or am looking for. So, aside from my English problem about seeking unicornicity or lesser pricedness, that route seems safer than anything that might lead to my insisting that there is that which I seek -- exhaustive search to the contrary notwithstanding. --part1_41.e7d0486.288cce38_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit One of the joys of a logical language is that it follows the logic.  the
problems of  opaque contexts is one where, by and large, this has been done,
though there is still a lot of area where folks are undecided or unclear just
how it is done.  As lojbab notes, different gismu have different logics and
so different solutions are called for.  I for one don't think that {lo'e} is
a solution, since, while there always is such a thing (if there are any
critters of the type involved at all), by definition, it may very well NOT be
what I want, need or am looking for.  So, aside from my English problem about
seeking unicornicity or lesser pricedness, that route seems safer than
anything that might lead to my insisting that there is that which I seek --
exhaustive search to the contrary notwithstanding. --part1_41.e7d0486.288cce38_boundary--