From cowan@ccil.org Sun Aug 19 14:04:09 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 19 Aug 2001 21:04:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 42573 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2001 21:04:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Aug 2001 21:04:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Aug 2001 21:04:08 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15YZjy-0000ST-00; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 17:04:14 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] Retraction &c, Part 2 In-Reply-To: from Nick Nicholas at "Aug 19, 2001 03:46:25 am" To: Nick Nicholas Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 17:04:14 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan Nick Nicholas scripsit: > 1mai: my understanding is that there exist transformations forming > unprenexed from prenexed sentences. Furthermore, all sumti in Lojban have > default quantifiers. Thus, Lojban sentences do all have unambiguously > recoverable prenexed forms. I think that is clearly correct. > It is possible that I am being petty in a lot of this. It is hard for me to > be humble, harder for me to admit I'm wrong, and hardest of all, I've now > learned, to realise that I may still think I'm right, but that doesn't mean > I'm going to have my way. Since I have heard these self-same remarks from another member of the community, I hereby dub this the "Lojbab Lesson". -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan