Received: from mail-ee0-f57.google.com ([74.125.83.57]:63150) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XulmZ-0002AT-FN; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:26:09 -0800 Received: by mail-ee0-f57.google.com with SMTP id e53sf682948eek.2 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:26:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=vcGx26rsE3uol+yYLjD+pLk/9m7WzxV5SlcIJ/yNu7E=; b=st7yhk8jK+6PohieUzreS+xSlJuJFFt2w9INDNZKLMldHQxTKLim+LTvCZ08BQPwZn a0uYKc9birXTNq6AjSUDFjvF/5CazjFVnWTuvKJDRc5myozfi+jmbIPtnwyYbH4EegVT SnIdQI+6OU2/12Pzq8xmqC5JucBJb1Y6ZFNAHLPBtMkRLSinH2d+/3N1CTI39HCFQnJA eO3Doq58jWEHTFgwqCyHQF9z/ZAsvjP+4NxG08h2dd6vG4VjKphW6llh1N8Xx7VpgNmA 3Gz90n0j1wOB4RkQ8onTKmc/+pqxmxBQZ1R4Nj9u1vfPjCvek1o4bSbrkcNnZo1brdmB 7pGw== X-Received: by 10.152.87.205 with SMTP id ba13mr662910lab.5.1417281960197; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:26:00 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.234.104 with SMTP id ud8ls170494lac.36.gmail; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:25:59 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.152.42.196 with SMTP id q4mr42604lal.6.1417281959630; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:25:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net. [212.227.17.22]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ed6si1344170wib.3.2014.11.29.09.25.59 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:25:59 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.22 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.22; Received: from [192.168.2.118] ([84.175.78.167]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M2FhY-1YDg8p0Fpk-00s2EV for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 18:25:59 +0100 Message-ID: <547A01A8.4040606@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 18:26:00 +0100 From: selpa'i User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bpfk] {ro}, existential import and De Morgan References: <20141018011419.GF12268@mercury.ccil.org> <97AABFB42A204E5D97A4EDFEA57A8508@gmail.com> <20141019012930.GF12991@mercury.ccil.org> <676B49242B0D4F6A986D6AFEA1EB3B3C@gmail.com> <20141019170808.GJ12991@mercury.ccil.org> <20141109004632.GL6360@mercury.ccil.org> <54620A89.6060205@gmail.com> <72cc5d1d-d442-4b70-9552-d5d407498ffe@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:h6F1g0eIrl/hkpsUERLA98ZoxUJqVwj88wy9fFu4j+4wvxVjKmx iOTI9OmP4xojRDdsUhJl0vq08hvPRqQN+zLBaYy2V+aAX7PGZ6RF/bE3q9IoU59/DBqXN1u Q9J2qYRqeg6TXpL2d1QwIVOve1wbJK8kTo3irSidRugS0kGfebviLKmynhMmdVUYqS2lgQK EN03HWsLaLu+gpnXLBmaA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; X-Original-Sender: seladwa@gmx.de X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.22 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=seladwa@gmx.de Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - la mukti cu cusku di'e > I'm not inclined to accept that no resolution is possible: It seems to > me that there is sufficient general agreement to ensure that subsequent > descriptions of the language handle this issue in such a way as to > address the concerns that have been raised in the past. What I don't understand is why, after achieving such a high consensus, we still cannot seem to call the question of existential import settled. I cannot recall many cases where so many Lojbanists all agreed on a thing, and here I see Lojbanists from completely different communities (as well as from different times) agreeing that {ro} should not have existential import. Is this not a democratic institution/committee? Or is it just that the two (?) nays are louder than the dozens of yays, again? mi'e la selpa'i mu'o -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.