From bpfk-list+bncCMvjp-TQBRCR38nkBBoE15AwUA@googlegroups.com Thu Sep 16 12:27:49 2010 Received: from mail-qw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.216.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OwK7B-0001pT-R5; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:27:48 -0700 Received: by qwi4 with SMTP id 4sf2707620qwi.16 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:27:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received:received-spf:received:received:references:from :in-reply-to:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :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:content-type; bh=aOnnW7C66eJ+9HdTEqdebapLdW6bw3ygXe7qFnbgEFg=; b=Ya+JLp0l0DBtDblalSdeQcPBHhOSevWbfVzqHgTLaOInLNFN30G2ui5ielL8xMlh4n UcToOuTxlCPkh8PwrLXZXVJAfJJvckoKgHtA+sHsGTzol5qyWOJbVfUv/2Yl63+2yD6f hlR4Cw5vPL9Ksjl//qn646i2bFc6EBTON8Hs0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:references:from:in-reply-to:mime-version :date:message-id:subject:to: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:content-type; b=JDI7haXp36v/Aj5Xj+8LdHLCXLC2viqegYaVvulHJXwR9YLzCLXV7eVV+zKlPp4HzB 4iSxwxoeMTcKtsea1NkwiYxUTMso2b5SFSXVmET0f0CXj9QruRw6LAKEVVijlePf98gv IaGJCrf9wVT/T70z90uXuj3XQKOgPyxv/Bw0Q= Received: by 10.224.64.87 with SMTP id d23mr403590qai.2.1284665233591; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:27:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.97.224 with SMTP id m32ls507920qan.2.p; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:27:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.19.129 with SMTP id a1mr271157qab.19.1284665233310; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:27:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.200.141 with SMTP id ew13mr972153vcb.20.1284664727889; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:18:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.200.141 with SMTP id ew13mr972151vcb.20.1284664727845; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:18:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id n18si384879vbs.3.2010.09.16.12.18.46; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of dbrockman@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.44; Received: by mail-qw0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 9so1770036qwc.17 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.89.80 with SMTP id d16mr2606370qam.78.1284664726643; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:18:46 -0700 (PDT) References: <2de88d23-c009-41e9-bb9c-86d1425b1b64@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com> From: Daniel Brockman In-Reply-To: <2de88d23-c009-41e9-bb9c-86d1425b1b64@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8A293) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:19:35 +0200 Message-ID: <-3659970292795760364@unknownmsgid> Subject: Re: [bpfk] Re: The Case for UI. To: "bpfk-list@googlegroups.com" X-Original-Sender: dbrockman@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of dbrockman@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=dbrockman@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > So... I can tell this has already been shot out of the water. =D > > Any serious opinions either way? You don't think xorxes's opinion (all emotional indicators are vague as to whether the sentence is an assertion or a hypothetical, although some are usually used with hypothetical sentences due to the emotion most often occurring simultaneously as someone compares alternate universes, and some are usually used with assertions due to the emotion usually occurring as someone experiences or thinks about a fact, and you can always force one or the other using {da'i} or {ju'a}) is a serious one? Which by the way xalbo already seconded and incidentally I happen to agree with and find a very elegant and lucid way of defining these semantics. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that most experienced Lojbanists would probably agree with xorxes's definitions once they'd read and understood them and would probably benefit from doing so. What confusion/disagreement remains, Lindar? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.