From bpfk-list+bncCKnwz67vDhD-juTkBBoExVxVzQ@googlegroups.com Tue Sep 21 12:29:32 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Oy8Wg-0006Br-FC; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:29:31 -0700 Received: by yxs7 with SMTP id 7sf6026962yxs.16 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:29:08 -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-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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=tVvJZhONqF4KlxuYlQ4WakTM5A/Y7ixXpEDn6KaA1xQ=; b=Y4BqtC3vAu5nh3hW8EfxAts3VvAbNeLhDB8SngIqvvR60EsDy3cJPNKdUF1vz61VOI VOIsidgMNs77KiZIrpi+i1vpxeiNS8YNpk5imBi2fWd+xZ+BsrCRBUzZaB5PUGsS9zsM ijzQolM+f07bKUohDbN8MReOc8U48IVkkPTbg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from: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=pVbQjKZeeM7FxugKegOKKPKdrp2cSTux+eSsNHWrwRJsErmZ+ZnQaIh3PbGsuDcr8b GaZUQ0k6lEl1Q6l7MaNQr9UlOo3hZT62bE+913WYZOk1gT689ozMLGfsEOU03igZ2Nb/ tfLpS8aUkstbtvQm9uyZ7ePxdRas8fNY+6+kg= Received: by 10.101.166.33 with SMTP id t33mr431333ano.16.1285097342309; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:29:02 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.156.10 with SMTP id i10ls2685236ano.3.p; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.143.13 with SMTP id q13mr6422098and.16.1285097342082; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.143.13 with SMTP id q13mr6422097and.16.1285097342052; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id k15si7940792anb.8.2010.09.21.12.29.01; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ted.reed@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.172; Received: by mail-yx0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 31so2059692yxl.3 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:29:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.133.6 with SMTP id k6mr10956701ybn.402.1285097340876; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.183.68 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:29:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100921185708.GB30871@digitalkingdom.org> References: <2de88d23-c009-41e9-bb9c-86d1425b1b64@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com> <-3659970292795760364@unknownmsgid> <20100921185708.GB30871@digitalkingdom.org> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:29:00 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: xorxes' idea of UI, as interpreted (was Re: [bpfk] Re: The Case for UI.) From: Theodore Reed To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: ted.reed@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ted.reed@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ted.reed@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485eb9e5e8138140490ca0a61 --001485eb9e5e8138140490ca0a61 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:57, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > It's a little bit like the whole "CAhA when unspecified is > undefined" thing, which is disturbing in that it means that any > sentence could be false-to-fact without declaring so, but the > principle of non-gluteality applies better in this case than in that > one. Related to this, and to what xalbo said since, is this part of my fundamental understanding of Lojban: Everything, when unspecified, is undefined. If you want to define it, specify it. Otherwise, leave it to context. (And I fully expect that any remotely conversational Lojbanist will do just that, *often*.) -- bancus -- 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. --001485eb9e5e8138140490ca0a61 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:57, Robin Lee Powell = <rlpowe= ll@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
It's a little bit like the whole "CAhA when unspecified is
undefined" thing, which is disturbing in that it means that any
sentence could be false-to-fact without declaring so, but the
principle of non-gluteality applies better in this case than in that
one.

Related to this, and to what xalbo sai= d since, is this part of my fundamental understanding of Lojban: Everything= , when unspecified, is undefined. If you want to define it, specify it. Oth= erwise, leave it to context. (And I fully expect that any remotely conversa= tional Lojbanist will do just that, *often*.)

-- bancus=A0

--
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@googleg= roups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-l= ist?hl=3Den.
--001485eb9e5e8138140490ca0a61--