From jay.kominek@colorado.edu Tue Aug 14 10:24:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 14 Aug 2001 17:24:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 41177 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2001 17:23:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Aug 2001 17:23:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ucsub.colorado.edu) (128.138.129.12) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Aug 2001 17:23:28 -0000 Received: from ucsub.colorado.edu (kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu [128.138.129.12]) by ucsub.colorado.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2/ITS-5.0/student) with ESMTP id f7EHNSW16514 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 11:23:28 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 11:23:27 -0600 (MDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] selma'o considered harmful In-Reply-To: <3B795627.3000108@reutershealth.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE From: Jay Kominek On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, John Cowan wrote: > Originally "du" was in its own selma'o, DU, and was permitted only > as a selbri_B_132 (IIRC). But I somewhat hastily over-generalized it > into selma'o GOhA, thus permitting some highly dubious constructs like > tanru with du. Highly dubious? It seems like it could be useful to make quick and imperfect statements about kinds of equality. {mi junta du do} I wouldn't advocate something like that for the logically stringent, but it seems far more convinent than {lo junta be mi du lo junta be do} or {lo ni junta mi kei du lo ni junta do kei} or even {mi du do tedu'i le ka junta} Sigh. Of course, I'm probably missing something. (I'll admit to not having any idea what good du would do as seltau, however.) - Jay Kominek Plus =C3=A7a change, plus c'est la m=C3=AAme chose