Tags and bridi operators
41 views
Skip to first unread message
selpa'i
May 21, 2013, 8:39:43 PM5/21/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
We know that na(ku), quantifiers, connectives and tenses are bridi
operators, but what about non-tense tags? Some clearly are bridi
operators, for instance the causals:
(1) mu'i lo nu mi tatpi kei mi na klama
"Because I'm tired, I don't go."
(2) mi na klama mu'i lo nu mi tatpi
"It is not the case that: I go because I'm tired."
Obviously, (1) and (2) have very different meanings. This happens
everytime the order of bridi operators is reversed.
When using certain BAI, it's not so clear if they should be treated as
bridi operators:
(3a) mi na sanga bau lo lojbo
(3b) bau lo lojbo mi na sanga
Do they mean the same? There are some cases where it is very useful for
BAI to be operators, and this is also true for {fi'o} constructs.
However, I see the following problem:
Either we make every tag, no matter what selma'o it belongs to, a bridi
operator, or we pick some that are operators and some that aren't
depending on what is the most useful / easiest to use. The problem with
the second option is that it is a bit annoying to have to memorize which
tags are and which aren't bridi operators. On the other hand, the
problem with the first option is that it would actually invalidate a lot
of usage! For example, from The Little Prince:
(4) do pu djuno noda fi'o fuzme mi
The intended meaning is (more or less) "It's my fault that you didn't
know." However, if {fi'o fuzme} is treated like any other tag, then the
scope is wrong and the sentence suddenly means "In the past, there was
no thing such that: you know it because of me", which is backwards from
the intended meaning.
Even worse, one of the most useful constructs I've been using, and which
I think xorxes came up with, is {tai ... ja'e ...}, but upon closer
examination, it, too, seems to be wrongly scoped:
(5a) mi tai tatpi ja'e lo nu mi na ka'e sanli
intended: "I'm so tired that I can't stand."
But the scope should look like this:
(5a') mi [tai [tatpi ja'e lo nu mi na ka'e sanli]]
The bridi operators have scope over what's to their right. Thus, [tatpi
ja'e lo nu mi na ka'e sanli] ends up filling tamsmi2:
(5b) lo nu mi tatpi ja'e lo nu mi na ka'e sanli cu se tamsmi zo'e
"The event of me being tired with the outcome that I can't
stand is like something."
While the intended expansion is more like:
(5c) lo nu lo nu mi tatpi cu se tamsmi zo'e
cu se jalge lo nu mi na ka'e sanli
That is, {jalge} is supposed to be the "main" claim, not {tamsmi}...
This is sad news. Should we say {tai} (or even {ja'e}) is not a bridi
operator and thus save the construction (and usage) or do we need to
update our usage? Both solutions have their pros and cons, but in the
long run, consistency seems more important.
I'd be particularly interested in xorxes' opinion.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
operators, but what about non-tense tags? Some clearly are bridi
operators, for instance the causals:
(1) mu'i lo nu mi tatpi kei mi na klama
"Because I'm tired, I don't go."
(2) mi na klama mu'i lo nu mi tatpi
"It is not the case that: I go because I'm tired."
Obviously, (1) and (2) have very different meanings. This happens
everytime the order of bridi operators is reversed.
When using certain BAI, it's not so clear if they should be treated as
bridi operators:
(3a) mi na sanga bau lo lojbo
(3b) bau lo lojbo mi na sanga
Do they mean the same? There are some cases where it is very useful for
BAI to be operators, and this is also true for {fi'o} constructs.
However, I see the following problem:
Either we make every tag, no matter what selma'o it belongs to, a bridi
operator, or we pick some that are operators and some that aren't
depending on what is the most useful / easiest to use. The problem with
the second option is that it is a bit annoying to have to memorize which
tags are and which aren't bridi operators. On the other hand, the
problem with the first option is that it would actually invalidate a lot
of usage! For example, from The Little Prince:
(4) do pu djuno noda fi'o fuzme mi
The intended meaning is (more or less) "It's my fault that you didn't
know." However, if {fi'o fuzme} is treated like any other tag, then the
scope is wrong and the sentence suddenly means "In the past, there was
no thing such that: you know it because of me", which is backwards from
the intended meaning.
Even worse, one of the most useful constructs I've been using, and which
I think xorxes came up with, is {tai ... ja'e ...}, but upon closer
examination, it, too, seems to be wrongly scoped:
(5a) mi tai tatpi ja'e lo nu mi na ka'e sanli
intended: "I'm so tired that I can't stand."
But the scope should look like this:
(5a') mi [tai [tatpi ja'e lo nu mi na ka'e sanli]]
The bridi operators have scope over what's to their right. Thus, [tatpi
ja'e lo nu mi na ka'e sanli] ends up filling tamsmi2:
(5b) lo nu mi tatpi ja'e lo nu mi na ka'e sanli cu se tamsmi zo'e
"The event of me being tired with the outcome that I can't
stand is like something."
While the intended expansion is more like:
(5c) lo nu lo nu mi tatpi cu se tamsmi zo'e
cu se jalge lo nu mi na ka'e sanli
That is, {jalge} is supposed to be the "main" claim, not {tamsmi}...
This is sad news. Should we say {tai} (or even {ja'e}) is not a bridi
operator and thus save the construction (and usage) or do we need to
update our usage? Both solutions have their pros and cons, but in the
long run, consistency seems more important.
I'd be particularly interested in xorxes' opinion.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
Jorge Llambías
May 21, 2013, 10:08:59 PM5/21/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:39 PM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:
We know that na(ku), quantifiers, connectives and tenses are bridi operators, but what about non-tense tags? Some clearly are bridi operators, for instance the causals:
In general, tags for which the rest of the bridi is an argument of the tag's underlying selbri would be bridi operators. Those are also the easiest tags to come up with a clean definition for. Maybe all tags have to be defined that way.
Either we make every tag, no matter what selma'o it belongs to, a bridi operator, or we pick some that are operators and some that aren't depending on what is the most useful / easiest to use. The problem with the second option is that it is a bit annoying to have to memorize which tags are and which aren't bridi operators. On the other hand, the problem with the first option is that it would actually invalidate a lot of usage! For example, from The Little Prince:
(4) do pu djuno noda fi'o fuzme mi
The intended meaning is (more or less) "It's my fault that you didn't know." However, if {fi'o fuzme} is treated like any other tag, then the scope is wrong and the sentence suddenly means "In the past, there was no thing such that: you know it because of me", which is backwards from the intended meaning.
Yes, it should have been "fi'o fuzme mi do pu djuno no da". It's a very common mistake with causals. For some reason we always tend to give them wide scope, even when used at the end of the sentence. Very common with "na ... ki'u ..." for instance.
This is sad news. Should we say {tai} (or even {ja'e}) is not a bridi operator and thus save the construction (and usage) or do we need to update our usage? Both solutions have their pros and cons, but in the long run, consistency seems more important.
I'd be particularly interested in xorxes' opinion.
I guess it should be "ja'e ... tai ..." rather than "tai ... ja'e ...".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
selpa'i
May 22, 2013, 6:36:42 AM5/22/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
selbri has a place for an abstraction as putting the main bridi into
that abstraction place. For some other tags I don't see an easy way to
define them, e.g. {bau}. Some of these tags don't seem to make much
sense when looked at from a lojbanic point of view. That's why I
proposed to change bangu3 into something that could take the main bridi.
Some tags can be defined in terms of {gi'e} I think, and for tags that
really only apply to single sumti places I have an idea about semantic
roles determining which sumti place to pick. (cf. e.g. {se kai})
> Either we make every tag, no matter what selma'o it belongs to, a
> bridi operator, or we pick some that are operators and some that
> aren't depending on what is the most useful / easiest to use. The
> problem with the second option is that it is a bit annoying to have
> to memorize which tags are and which aren't bridi operators. On the
> other hand, the problem with the first option is that it would
> actually invalidate a lot of usage! For example, from The Little Prince:
>
> (4) do pu djuno noda fi'o fuzme mi
>
> The intended meaning is (more or less) "It's my fault that you
> didn't know." However, if {fi'o fuzme} is treated like any other
> tag, then the scope is wrong and the sentence suddenly means "In the
> past, there was no thing such that: you know it because of me",
> which is backwards from the intended meaning.
>
>
> Yes, it should have been "fi'o fuzme mi do pu djuno no da". It's a very
> common mistake with causals. For some reason we always tend to give them
> wide scope, even when used at the end of the sentence. Very common with
> "na ... ki'u ..." for instance.
>
> This is sad news. Should we say {tai} (or even {ja'e}) is not a
> bridi operator and thus save the construction (and usage) or do we
> need to update our usage? Both solutions have their pros and cons,
> but in the long run, consistency seems more important.
>
> I'd be particularly interested in xorxes' opinion.
>
>
> I guess it should be "ja'e ... tai ..." rather than "tai ... ja'e ...".
Right. Unfortunately it means that a lot of texts would need to be
updated (mostly mine and yours I suppose, I don't know who else uses
this construction), and it is also backwards from the way natlangs do
it; putting {ja'e} first is somewhat anti-climactic. Maybe a scope
jumper cmavo...
There is also the option of "broda be tai ... be'o ja'e ..." to give
{tai} local scope as a last resort.
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:39 PM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de
> <mailto:sel...@gmx.de>> wrote:
>
> We know that na(ku), quantifiers, connectives and tenses are bridi
> operators, but what about non-tense tags? Some clearly are bridi
> operators, for instance the causals:
>
>
> In general, tags for which the rest of the bridi is an argument of the
> tag's underlying selbri would be bridi operators. Those are also the
> easiest tags to come up with a clean definition for. Maybe all tags have
> to be defined that way.
I couldn't agree more. My approach is to treat every tag whose base
> <mailto:sel...@gmx.de>> wrote:
>
> We know that na(ku), quantifiers, connectives and tenses are bridi
> operators, but what about non-tense tags? Some clearly are bridi
> operators, for instance the causals:
>
>
> In general, tags for which the rest of the bridi is an argument of the
> tag's underlying selbri would be bridi operators. Those are also the
> easiest tags to come up with a clean definition for. Maybe all tags have
> to be defined that way.
selbri has a place for an abstraction as putting the main bridi into
that abstraction place. For some other tags I don't see an easy way to
define them, e.g. {bau}. Some of these tags don't seem to make much
sense when looked at from a lojbanic point of view. That's why I
proposed to change bangu3 into something that could take the main bridi.
Some tags can be defined in terms of {gi'e} I think, and for tags that
really only apply to single sumti places I have an idea about semantic
roles determining which sumti place to pick. (cf. e.g. {se kai})
> Either we make every tag, no matter what selma'o it belongs to, a
> bridi operator, or we pick some that are operators and some that
> aren't depending on what is the most useful / easiest to use. The
> problem with the second option is that it is a bit annoying to have
> to memorize which tags are and which aren't bridi operators. On the
> other hand, the problem with the first option is that it would
> actually invalidate a lot of usage! For example, from The Little Prince:
>
> (4) do pu djuno noda fi'o fuzme mi
>
> The intended meaning is (more or less) "It's my fault that you
> didn't know." However, if {fi'o fuzme} is treated like any other
> tag, then the scope is wrong and the sentence suddenly means "In the
> past, there was no thing such that: you know it because of me",
> which is backwards from the intended meaning.
>
>
> Yes, it should have been "fi'o fuzme mi do pu djuno no da". It's a very
> common mistake with causals. For some reason we always tend to give them
> wide scope, even when used at the end of the sentence. Very common with
> "na ... ki'u ..." for instance.
>
> This is sad news. Should we say {tai} (or even {ja'e}) is not a
> bridi operator and thus save the construction (and usage) or do we
> need to update our usage? Both solutions have their pros and cons,
> but in the long run, consistency seems more important.
>
> I'd be particularly interested in xorxes' opinion.
>
>
> I guess it should be "ja'e ... tai ..." rather than "tai ... ja'e ...".
updated (mostly mine and yours I suppose, I don't know who else uses
this construction), and it is also backwards from the way natlangs do
it; putting {ja'e} first is somewhat anti-climactic. Maybe a scope
jumper cmavo...
There is also the option of "broda be tai ... be'o ja'e ..." to give
{tai} local scope as a last resort.
la gleki
May 22, 2013, 6:42:47 AM5/22/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:08:59 AM UTC+4, xorxes wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:39 PM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:
We know that na(ku), quantifiers, connectives and tenses are bridi operators, but what about non-tense tags? Some clearly are bridi operators, for instance the causals:
In general, tags for which the rest of the bridi is an argument of the tag's underlying selbri would be bridi operators. Those are also the easiest tags to come up with a clean definition for. Maybe all tags have to be defined that way.Either we make every tag, no matter what selma'o it belongs to, a bridi operator, or we pick some that are operators and some that aren't depending on what is the most useful / easiest to use. The problem with the second option is that it is a bit annoying to have to memorize which tags are and which aren't bridi operators. On the other hand, the problem with the first option is that it would actually invalidate a lot of usage! For example, from The Little Prince:
(4) do pu djuno noda fi'o fuzme mi
The intended meaning is (more or less) "It's my fault that you didn't know." However, if {fi'o fuzme} is treated like any other tag, then the scope is wrong and the sentence suddenly means "In the past, there was no thing such that: you know it because of me", which is backwards from the intended meaning.
Yes, it should have been "fi'o fuzme mi do pu djuno no da".
This is something absolutely counterintuitive. This is one of the first features to be clearly documented in BPFK sections of the wiki.
Jorge Llambías
May 22, 2013, 8:07:20 AM5/22/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:36 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:
There is also the option of "broda be tai ... be'o ja'e ..." to give {tai} local scope as a last resort.
Also " tai ... .i ja'e bo ..."
selpa'i
May 22, 2013, 8:36:21 AM5/22/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
"ge tai ... gi ja'e bo", though that introduces an AND, but I'm not sure
that matters. I don't think I would like "ju'e gi tai ... gi ja'e bo
...", especially if {ju'e} is the {zo'e} of JOI.
guskant
May 22, 2013, 1:19:56 PM5/22/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Le mercredi 22 mai 2013 11:08:59 UTC+9, xorxes a écrit :
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:39 PM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:
We know that na(ku), quantifiers, connectives and tenses are bridi operators, but what about non-tense tags? Some clearly are bridi operators, for instance the causals:
In general, tags for which the rest of the bridi is an argument of the tag's underlying selbri would be bridi operators. Those are also the easiest tags to come up with a clean definition for. Maybe all tags have to be defined that way.
I am confused. I agree that this http://www.lojban.org/tiki/scope+of+na is applied to all BAI tags, but do the following bridi have the same scope of {na}, or only (6c) and (6d) have wider scope of {na}, though the four bridi seemingly have the same meaning?
(6a) bau lo jbobau mi do zo'e na tavla
(6b) fi'o ve tavla lo jbobau mi do zo'e na tavla
(6c) fo lo jbobau fa mi do zo'e na tavla
(6d) mi do zo'e lo jbobau na tavla
selpa'i
May 22, 2013, 1:35:14 PM5/22/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
selbri. If you placed {na ku} in front, then the negation would have
scope over {bau} and {fi'o ve tavla} in (6a) and (6b) respectively
(whether or not it makes a difference). {fo} isn't tradionally
considered a tag like all the others, so I assume it would be a
"constant" tag. (6c) and (6d) should be the same.
> I am confused. I agree that this http://www.lojban.org/tiki/scope+of+na
> is applied to all BAI tags, but do the following bridi have the same
> scope of {na}, or only (6c) and (6d) have wider scope of {na}, though
> the four bridi seemingly have the same meaning?
>
> (6a) bau lo jbobau mi do zo'e na tavla
> (6b) fi'o ve tavla lo jbobau mi do zo'e na tavla
> (6c) fo lo jbobau fa mi do zo'e na tavla
> (6d) mi do zo'e lo jbobau na tavla
The scope of {na} is the same in all those; it only scopes over the
> is applied to all BAI tags, but do the following bridi have the same
> scope of {na}, or only (6c) and (6d) have wider scope of {na}, though
> the four bridi seemingly have the same meaning?
>
> (6a) bau lo jbobau mi do zo'e na tavla
> (6b) fi'o ve tavla lo jbobau mi do zo'e na tavla
> (6c) fo lo jbobau fa mi do zo'e na tavla
> (6d) mi do zo'e lo jbobau na tavla
selbri. If you placed {na ku} in front, then the negation would have
scope over {bau} and {fi'o ve tavla} in (6a) and (6b) respectively
(whether or not it makes a difference). {fo} isn't tradionally
considered a tag like all the others, so I assume it would be a
"constant" tag. (6c) and (6d) should be the same.
guskant
May 22, 2013, 3:53:17 PM5/22/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
{na} is a selbri tag in all those, but it, as well as {bau} and {fi'o ve tavla}, is a bridi operator.
Traditionally, the selbri tag {na} is equivalent to {naku} at the beginning of the sentence, then {na} scopes over the whole bridi in every case.
However, because of the problem shown in http://www.lojban.org/tiki/scope+of+na , {na} is treated in the same way as the other bridi operators: the earlier has wider scope. Then the four bridi are equivalent to the following bridi:
(6a') bau lo jbobau naku zo'u mi do zo'e tavla
(6b') fi'o ve tavla lo jbobau naku zo'u mi do zo'e tavla
(6c') naku zo'u fo lo jbobau fa mi do zo'e tavla
(6d') naku zo'u mi do zo'e lo jbobau tavla
The scope of {na} seems different between ((6a'),(6b')) and ((6c'),(6d')).
Ian Johnson
May 22, 2013, 4:28:19 PM5/22/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
The "standard idiom" that I see on IRC for those that even use {na} as selbri tcita anymore is basically xorxes' paragraph number 6.
mi'e la latro'a mu'o
guskant
May 22, 2013, 5:29:04 PM5/22/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Still unclear. How do you reformulate (6a) (6b) (6c) (6d) to a prenex form according to the "standard idiom" on IRC?
selpa'i
May 22, 2013, 5:46:03 PM5/22/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> {na} is a selbri tag in all those, but it, as well as {bau} and {fi'o ve
> tavla}, is a bridi operator.
> Traditionally, the selbri tag {na} is equivalent to {naku} at the
> beginning of the sentence, then {na} scopes over the whole bridi in
> every case.
> However, because of the problem shown in
> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/scope+of+na , {na} is treated in the same way
> as the other bridi operators: the earlier has wider scope. Then the four
> bridi are equivalent to the following bridi:
>
> (6a') bau lo jbobau naku zo'u mi do zo'e tavla
> (6b') fi'o ve tavla lo jbobau naku zo'u mi do zo'e tavla
> (6c') naku zo'u fo lo jbobau fa mi do zo'e tavla
> (6d') naku zo'u mi do zo'e lo jbobau tavla
Yes.
> tavla}, is a bridi operator.
> Traditionally, the selbri tag {na} is equivalent to {naku} at the
> beginning of the sentence, then {na} scopes over the whole bridi in
> every case.
> However, because of the problem shown in
> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/scope+of+na , {na} is treated in the same way
> as the other bridi operators: the earlier has wider scope. Then the four
> bridi are equivalent to the following bridi:
>
> (6a') bau lo jbobau naku zo'u mi do zo'e tavla
> (6b') fi'o ve tavla lo jbobau naku zo'u mi do zo'e tavla
> (6c') naku zo'u fo lo jbobau fa mi do zo'e tavla
> (6d') naku zo'u mi do zo'e lo jbobau tavla
> The scope of {na} seems different between ((6a'),(6b')) and ((6c'),(6d')).
and (6b') have scope over {na}, but not in (6c') and (6d')? Yes, that's
true, but that's because the former two use tags, and the latter two
don't. The tags are the diffence, not {na} itself. {na} is under the
scope of another operator in the first two. Or am I misunderstanding you?
guskant
May 22, 2013, 6:34:26 PM5/22/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
OK, it's now clear, ki'e. It is shocking but interesting that (6b) and (6c) have different scopes of {na}. In my view, the terms in prenex suggest somehow what is the universe of discourse of the bridi. From this point of view, (6b) and (6c) suggest different universes of discourse: (6b) first restrict the universe of discourse to what is concerning the language used, and then negate the bridi; on the other hand, (6c) does not suggests anything related to the universe of discourse, and simply negates the bridi.
Pierre Abbat
May 22, 2013, 12:16:06 AM5/22/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 02:39:43 selpa'i wrote:
> We know that na(ku), quantifiers, connectives and tenses are bridi
> operators, but what about non-tense tags? Some clearly are bridi
> operators, for instance the causals:
>
> (1) mu'i lo nu mi tatpi kei mi na klama
> "Because I'm tired, I don't go."
>
> (2) mi na klama mu'i lo nu mi tatpi
> "It is not the case that: I go because I'm tired."
>
> Obviously, (1) and (2) have very different meanings. This happens
> everytime the order of bridi operators is reversed.
No they don't. They mean the same thing. If you said "naku" instead of "na" in
> We know that na(ku), quantifiers, connectives and tenses are bridi
> operators, but what about non-tense tags? Some clearly are bridi
> operators, for instance the causals:
>
> (1) mu'i lo nu mi tatpi kei mi na klama
> "Because I'm tired, I don't go."
>
> (2) mi na klama mu'i lo nu mi tatpi
> "It is not the case that: I go because I'm tired."
>
> Obviously, (1) and (2) have very different meanings. This happens
> everytime the order of bridi operators is reversed.
both sentences, they would mean different things. "na" just before the selbri
is equivalent to "naku" at the start of the bridi, unless there's more than
one start of the bridi because of conjunctions.
> When using certain BAI, it's not so clear if they should be treated as
> bridi operators:
>
> (3a) mi na sanga bau lo lojbo
>
> (3b) bau lo lojbo mi na sanga
>
> Do they mean the same? There are some cases where it is very useful for
> BAI to be operators, and this is also true for {fi'o} constructs.
> However, I see the following problem:
> Either we make every tag, no matter what selma'o it belongs to, a bridi
> operator, or we pick some that are operators and some that aren't
> depending on what is the most useful / easiest to use. The problem with
> the second option is that it is a bit annoying to have to memorize which
> tags are and which aren't bridi operators. On the other hand, the
> problem with the first option is that it would actually invalidate a lot
> of usage! For example, from The Little Prince:
>
> (4) do pu djuno noda fi'o fuzme mi
>
> The intended meaning is (more or less) "It's my fault that you didn't
> know." However, if {fi'o fuzme} is treated like any other tag, then the
> scope is wrong and the sentence suddenly means "In the past, there was
> no thing such that: you know it because of me", which is backwards from
> the intended meaning.
side with xorxes.
> Even worse, one of the most useful constructs I've been using, and which
> I think xorxes came up with, is {tai ... ja'e ...}, but upon closer
> examination, it, too, seems to be wrongly scoped:
>
> (5a) mi tai tatpi ja'e lo nu mi na ka'e sanli
> intended: "I'm so tired that I can't stand."
>
> But the scope should look like this:
>
> (5a') mi [tai [tatpi ja'e lo nu mi na ka'e sanli]]
>
> The bridi operators have scope over what's to their right. Thus, [tatpi
> ja'e lo nu mi na ka'e sanli] ends up filling tamsmi2:
>
> (5b) lo nu mi tatpi ja'e lo nu mi na ka'e sanli cu se tamsmi zo'e
> "The event of me being tired with the outcome that I can't
> stand is like something."
>
> While the intended expansion is more like:
>
> (5c) lo nu lo nu mi tatpi cu se tamsmi zo'e
> cu se jalge lo nu mi na ka'e sanli
>
> That is, {jalge} is supposed to be the "main" claim, not {tamsmi}...
tense marker, it's equivalent to "tai ku". Nothing could end up in place 2 of
"tamsmi", as the preposition is "tai", not "setai".
Pierre
--
Jews use a lunisolar calendar; Muslims use a solely lunar calendar.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages