Re: remoi ke nunju'i cpedu be fi lei jbobau tcidu

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

> i pe'udo'u e'osai ko mrilu lo notci mi ijanai do na ba'o spuda
>                                        ^^^^^^
> 
> na'ipei .i mi jinvi lenu do pu djica lu .ijo li'u
> 
> I could try to explain in Lojban, but I won't.  I am responding to your
> "ko" and it is false that I am not in the aftermath of responding (I'll
> even give yoy the benefit of the doubt, and presume it is obvious that
> you wanted "do na ba'o spuda le purci notci".  After all, it is true
> for everyoine that it is false that they are in the aftermath of responding
> to THIS message.)

The intended places of {spuda} are the obvious ones in the context, I don't
think I needed to explicit them more. I did intend the meaning of {ija}.
I even thought of removing the two negatives that cancel, na and nai, but
then it could have been perhaps confusing.

By responding, you're making the whole sentence true, as you say, even though
you had already responded, but so what?, I do not mind receiving replies from
those who already replied. I said "send a message if you haven't yet", if
you already have, then you can do what you want, I'm not also requesting
that in that case you _don't_ send a message.

> But by responding to this message, the statement is true whether or not
> I responded earlier.  Maybe this was your intent, but the implication
> to me was that you probably wanted responses from people OTHER THAN
> earlier responders. 

That's what I wanted, but as I said, replies from others (like yours here)
are also very welcome.

> Thus I respond and you now have pano terspu even
> if no one else responds (or rather su'opano, since someone may have beaten me 
> to it) - remember that "so terspu" expands to "so lo terspu", and not "so
> ba'e le terspu".

I could argue that in this context, a {terspu} is one if it comes from one
person, no matter in how many pieces. :) And in any case, my use of terspu
was before your second mail.
 
> On the other hand, i am not surprised at the numbers, and even thought they
> might be higher - I'd have to look at the current Lojban List to quantify
> my expectation.  Note that Ivan could certainly respond but is not currently
> on the list.

I received the tenth while I was writing that message, but I sent it anyway, 
otherwise I would have had to rewrite everything. Nothing more after that.

co'o

Jorge