From rob@twcny.rr.com Thu Aug 23 12:37:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@telenet.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 23 Aug 2001 19:37:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 64971 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2001 19:35:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Aug 2001 19:35:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO telenet.net) (204.97.152.225) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Aug 2001 19:35:47 -0000 Received: from riff (ip-209-23-14-40.modem.logical.net [209.23.14.40]) by telenet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09065 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:35:46 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15a0GF-0000cI-00 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:35:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:35:26 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o Message-ID: <20010823153526.A2365@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com Sender: Rob Speer From: Rob Speer On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 02:15:29PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > I like it! That would also explain what the heck {si'o} > means, which I never really understood. My only minor qualm > is with this: > > >5. In ka abstractions that contain no overt ce'u, exactly one elided sumti > >is interpreted as ce'u and the rest are interpreted as zo'e. > > I would also temper it down here to "exactly one unless overridden > by strong contextual factors", basically to cover the x2 of > simxu. I still want to be able to say {simxu le ka darxi} > for example. With that change, I agree with the proposal. Very cool. -- Rob Speer