Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:43617) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RRSbM-000176-AW; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:51:53 -0800 Received: by bkat2 with SMTP id t2sf3626351bka.16 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:51:40 -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; bh=CebZZQVf2uAgqAEQKbwzTHBEET1rsSgbHxWHUhBZMwk=; b=142ZV8OyUuSi4Nk1sVh7VUqjg+ScHm7uPkVKNBe63hfqoEPeFdhfVZEOOWf7TdoiIs 9nmzZ7PLwYyoogSt9pWrkcgzo7wHYarReOyo1je5ZFv33l2QC18u7MJoJJLk5bAXGLNX c+t76yT/BJn0LOA5IveXyudhCDxBurGiNl/nI= Received: by 10.204.155.70 with SMTP id r6mr375229bkw.2.1321638697740; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:51:37 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.200.144 with SMTP id ew16ls1842208bkb.2.gmail; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:51:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.205.132.13 with SMTP id hs13mr640739bkc.0.1321638696539; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:51:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.205.132.13 with SMTP id hs13mr640738bkc.0.1321638696518; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:51:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com (mail-bw0-f46.google.com [209.85.214.46]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j1si242054bky.2.2011.11.18.09.51.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:51:36 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.46; Received: by mail-bw0-f46.google.com with SMTP id 11so5129755bke.33 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:51:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.10.77 with SMTP id o13mr4619893bko.12.1321638696322; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:51:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.41.67 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:51:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1321501066.64722.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1321633769.30584.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:51:35 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: mturniansky@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.46 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mturniansky@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151747903204061604b205fd50 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / --00151747903204061604b205fd50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:39 PM, maikxlx wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:29 AM, John E Clifford > wrote: > > JCB had at least one course in Logic but in a school that did not favor > modal > > logic at all. I don't know how well he did in even that one (Lojbab > does not > > improve the logic input much). But in 56 years, the efforts to get > necessity > > operators in have come to naught -- though eventually we got something > like a > > necessity predicate, > > > Is there a brivla for logical or modal necessity? > Does nibli meet your requirements? --gejyspa > > 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. > > -- > 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@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > > -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --00151747903204061604b205fd50 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:39 PM, maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:29 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:> JCB had at least one course in Logic but in a school that did not fav= or modal
> logic at all. =A0I don't know how well he did in even that one (Lo= jbab does not
> improve the logic input much). =A0But in 56 years, th= e efforts to get necessity
> operators in have come to naught -- thou= gh eventually we got something like a
> necessity predicate,
>
Is there a brivla for logical or= modal necessity?
=A0
=A0 Does nibli meet your requirements?
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --gejyspa
=A0

If I may confess something, = I have been studying Lojban on and off for
years, and every time I get i= nto a learning groove I encounter some
facet of the language that strikes me as so bizarre or absurd that it
st= ops me in my tracks. =A0The lack of a necessity operator and the
questio= nable 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 th= e matter is that reform is not in the cards and the
language's found= ation is pretty much set in stone. =A0However 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. =A0I understand there is an experimental cmavo process, but I<= br> am going to short-circuit it. =A0Waiting 56 years for "necessarily&quo= t; is
outrageous.

mu'o mi'e .maik.

--
You received th= is message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban&quo= t; group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For= more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?h= l=3Den.


--
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.
--00151747903204061604b205fd50--