From lojban-beginners+bncCOib25n_BhCf5orrBBoE9TPZ4g@googlegroups.com Mon Feb 21 10:47:13 2011 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Pramr-00084H-DL; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:47:13 -0800 Received: by ywg8 with SMTP id 8sf1467326ywg.16 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:47:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=N/+DUvsIl5hN/eDZrSg/obc5CflLYEBK1zakWQ8JCLA=; b=nWHGBFGME26EfTXVpCv7387ycR0pc9ZKnuKTTGSrcYavCKc7h1Gjhj+yZzICqC3nvc EIQtMwdThypM9eU6ZYhyEc3hEt4prDigcZZM/8xbnb5HcG7joY6GEaDbhz1nEuAeMdc3 2dv93H8KGK2CW3rH7FA+iwida9i02czmbkrV4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=nZ26XOxV27pRTvmecutPPKGGL37lcKm63TRBOCZh1AQHH8JsF0hkaVqyTS+/0XHbqe TA0XHBpQy5FrPJHP/FZbOwTcnjKcG3wAwT5NE+pA9W3C/AXEzzZuLHRo2jVEjXGN8qmI sWiFLttT4m1XaWIBQ68QkbjPTdLdjtPen2OVw= Received: by 10.91.3.10 with SMTP id f10mr199911agi.18.1298314015423; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:46:55 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.76.165 with SMTP id c37ls5201104ibk.3.p; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:46:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.33.203 with SMTP id i11mr500334ibd.16.1298314014540; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:46:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.33.203 with SMTP id i11mr500333ibd.16.1298314014491; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:46:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iw0-f178.google.com (mail-iw0-f178.google.com [209.85.214.178]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m30si1215483ibu.2.2011.02.21.10.46.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:46:53 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.178; Received: by iwn9 with SMTP id 9so2000656iwn.9 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:46:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.43.45.5 with SMTP id ui5mr2127206icb.497.1298314013233; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:46:53 -0800 (PST) Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.42.141.67 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:46:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201102171403.40004.phma@phma.optus.nu> <201102171622.02738.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:46:53 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Question about {roda} From: ".arpis." To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Cc: Remo Dentato X-Original-Sender: rpglover64@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.178 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rpglover64@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51a75a490d074049ccf4970 --bcaec51a75a490d074049ccf4970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 It seems to me that the contention is not so much about {da} but mostly about {ro}, and to whether or not an implicit {poi co'e} is permitted in most situations. This seems perfectly fine (if imprecise) to me, provided this does not apply in a logical prenex. People who know lojban better than I seem to be having a discussion about this, and I'm trying to keep up and learn. On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Remo Dentato wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Luke Bergen > wrote: > > I would read that as "everything (which are people) hate me". So you're > > still saying {roda xebni mi} while also implying that {roda prenu}. > > Yes, I was just saying that since you had {noi}, you might use {poi} > instead and really restrict {da}. > > I hope we all will end up with a sort of common understanding. > At the moment I'm still on the side of those that say that {da} may be > implicitly bound by by reasonable assumptions on the context (the > universe of discourse), I'm no longer sure of who's against this point > of view (and why). > > remo > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lojban Beginners" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. > > -- mu'o mi'e .arpis. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. --bcaec51a75a490d074049ccf4970 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It seems to me that the contention is not so much about {da} but mostly abo= ut {ro}, and to whether or not an implicit {poi co'e} is permitted in m= ost situations.

This seems perfectly fine (if imprecise) to me, prov= ided this does not apply in a logical prenex.
People who know lojban better than I seem to be having a discussion about t= his, and I'm trying to keep up and learn.

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com> wrote= :
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would read that as "everything (which are people) hate me"= . =A0So you're
> still saying {roda xebni mi} while also implying that {roda prenu}.
Yes, I was just saying that since you had {noi}, you might use {poi}<= br> instead and really restrict {da}.

I hope we all will end up with a sort of common understanding.
At the moment I'm still on the side of those that say that {da} may be<= br> implicitly bound by by reasonable assumptions on the context (the
universe of discourse), I'm no longer sure of who's against this po= int
of view (and why).

remo

--
You received this message because = you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.=
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegr= oups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.




--
mu'o mi= 'e .arpis.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.
--bcaec51a75a490d074049ccf4970--