BPFK Super-Section: BAI sumtcita
On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 07:08:28PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > Then we can do:
> >
> > lo nu X na to'e rinka lo nu Y == Y to'e ri'a nai X == Y occurs,
> > and it is not the case that X prevents it == Y despite X
>
> Yes, that's the same form I reached here:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/23441
That fact that it took me two weeks an a couple of hours of
concentrated thought to understand something that you felt
sufficiently expressed in *two* *sentences* might help you
understand why I often badger you to expand your definitions.
I am not very good at reading out implications. Furthermore, I
assume that anyone reading what I write is worse at it, and less
knowledgable, than I am. I'd rather some people have to read more
than they need than have some people not understand what I wrote.
I'd like to see more of this attitude from other BPFKers (not
particularily speaking as jatna there).
-Robin