Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:35564) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RRSPg-00010a-P9; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:39:49 -0800 Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33sf1555750pzk.16 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:39:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=j3ts12nl9M682y4f8S8QQIF41OkcaqVkDE33ckanyAk=; b=oae6xwu7M/35aZXz5I+1DcvUiKXE1FvihjRfX0bLmPjgYm7yYeJUFPEakbqwgXOoOT JpoFyvUgFWog+JRZjMzrQT8rOdxAvJ9TL3cVROQPOB1vCA70Tyt4bR/0qIwJzqq16FXJ x/m9AfD27rd/VHEmHbmZb/bJhIbGSdbnV6GrM= Received: by 10.68.25.232 with SMTP id f8mr836796pbg.2.1321637975828; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:39:35 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.68.26.8 with SMTP id h8ls343169pbg.1.gmail; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:39:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.35.68 with SMTP id f4mr3228046pbj.5.1321637975080; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:39:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.35.68 with SMTP id f4mr3228042pbj.5.1321637975047; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:39:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pz0-f41.google.com (mail-pz0-f41.google.com [209.85.210.41]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l5si6825691pbe.2.2011.11.18.09.39.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:39:35 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of maikxlx@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.41; Received: by mail-pz0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 37so5865768pzk.0 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:39:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.38.41 with SMTP id d9mr6236955pbk.103.1321637974791; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:39:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.224.8 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:39:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1321633769.30584.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1321501066.64722.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1321633769.30584.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:39:33 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like From: maikxlx To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: maikxlx@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of maikxlx@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=maikxlx@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:29 AM, John E Clifford wr= ote: > JCB had at least one course in Logic but in a school that did not favor m= odal > logic at all. =A0I don't know how well he did in even that one (Lojbab do= es not > improve the logic input much). =A0But in 56 years, the efforts to get nec= essity > operators in have come to naught -- though eventually we got something li= ke a > necessity predicate, > Is there a brivla for logical or modal necessity? If I may confess something, I have been studying Lojban on and off for years, and every time I get into a learning groove I encounter some facet of the language that strikes me as so bizarre or absurd that it stops me in my tracks. The lack of a necessity operator and the questionable status of {ka'e} make the current situation no exception. I had absolutely no intention of suggesting reforms or additions because although nearly aspect of the language screams for them, the fact of the matter is that reform is not in the cards and the language's foundation is pretty much set in stone. However here I think that I will simply use {ne'e} when I need it, and possibly {ci'a} too until I convince myself that {ka'e} does what xorxes claims it does. I understand there is an experimental cmavo process, but I am going to short-circuit it. Waiting 56 years for "necessarily" is outrageous. mu'o mi'e .maik. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.