From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Aug 23 06:54:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 23 Aug 2001 13:54:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 12225 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2001 13:51:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Aug 2001 13:51:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Aug 2001 13:51:53 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 06:51:53 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 13:51:53 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: lo simxu Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 13:51:53 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Aug 2001 13:51:53.0436 (UTC) FILETIME=[C40129C0:01C12BDA] From: "Jorge Llambias" There was a semi-consensus at some point that lo simxu could be a set or a mass. The proposed distinction was that {mi ce do ce ta simxu le ka ce'u ce'u tavla} means: mi do tavla ije do mi tavla ije mi ta tavla ije ta mi tavla ije do ta tavla ije ta do tavla whereas {mi joi do joi ta simxu le ka ce'u ce'u tavla} is not so strictly exhaustive, more like {mi joi do joi ta tavla mi joi do joi ta}. The benign effect of this convention would be to kill the use of sets with simxu, because we practically never want the exhaustive combinatorics meaning. {le tavla simxu cu klama le zarci} is meaningful to me, but it makes no sense if {lo simxu} is construed as a set, because sets don't go to stores. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp