[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> You can do that in more standard ways than having two places
> for the same argument. Using {po'u} for instance. I take it
> that using the name in x4 and the more informative expression
> in x1 of fancu is as acceptable as the other way around?
How do you figure that a name of a function qualifies as
"expression/rule"??? I think you're going to far with the equality between
fancu1 and fancu4. But perhaps these generalities have played themselves
out and it's time to discuss real examples. Chew on these!
1. xuda fancu lo'i selspe be mi lo'i ckana be ne'i le mi zdani
2. fy. fancu le jei lo gerku cu xabju lo mi zdani kei le jei mi bilma
3. da fancu fo lo ka ce'u po'u lo verba be mi cu kelci ce'u
--
The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.