Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]:42439) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RS6P8-0005UQ-Ls; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 04:21:59 -0800 Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10sf4518320vbb.16 for ; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 04:21:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-ct-class:x-ct-score:x-ct-refid:x-ct-spam :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent :x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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=OksOndmMxK8LGkfLl++g33qcLFb773LUam7b/OKrum0=; b=c+7uJt/B5uIOWGd7Zf0VyiKkLzwMQyIKpE8c0Ja4vtDWrBr/hRoKo8aKaIieTMAvwT wMZxtwS2CYwDMnZJfttH7OaMvvGmW74sHRvTO6rsIj5SyvCefrulOXLN5yPBTxlIbu/+ lLsaPjeKY89aNqW1wHBtaOl8fUR0Xdl9T+pxs= Received: by 10.52.186.195 with SMTP id fm3mr8192vdc.2.1321791609666; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 04:20:09 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.239.19 with SMTP id ku19ls6600091vcb.4.canary; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 04:20:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.35.206 with SMTP id k14mr13724012vdj.5.1321791608950; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 04:20:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.35.206 with SMTP id k14mr13724010vdj.5.1321791608940; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 04:20:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from eastrmfepo201.cox.net (eastrmfepo201.cox.net. [68.230.241.216]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id cn4si3358959vdb.3.2011.11.20.04.20.08; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 04:20:08 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.216 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.216; Received: from eastrmimpo210.cox.net ([68.230.241.225]) by eastrmfepo201.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20111120122008.OJQC4752.eastrmfepo201.cox.net@eastrmimpo210.cox.net> for ; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 07:20:08 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.187.237.100]) by eastrmimpo210.cox.net with bizsmtp id zQL31h0042AfMYu02QL3U0; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 07:20:07 -0500 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020206.4EC8F078.0025,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=De1JiIk2RxanYFgc+XGFICsyHMGw9Zzh53vWvxwLytc= c=1 sm=1 a=dYDkaTZZu5wA:10 a=LNyRDDSfcIoA:10 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:17 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=2lR6aRXp2NCCYOYiYKgA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10 a=HiokRSiV54Wtr7c3:21 a=f3zorD65WI7qvhkE:21 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4EC8F072.3070501@lojban.org> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 07:20:02 -0500 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like References: <1321501066.64722.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1321633769.30584.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1321640207.88557.YahooMailRC@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4EC705DD.8060202@lojban.org> <4EC79CEB.8000002@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.216 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org 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; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / maikxlx wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Bob LeChevalier, President and > Founder - LLG wrote: > >>maikxlx wrote: >> >>>On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Bob LeChevalier, President and >>>Founder - LLG wrote: >>> >>> >>>>If I make a ka'e capability claim involving all the places of klama, then >>>>the claim applies just as much to the place gone to as to the go-er. If >>>>I >>>>can go to a place (from somewhere else by some route), then that place >>>>can >>>>be gone to by me, and likewise, if I cannot, then it cannot. >>>> >>> >>>I have to disagree; I think that {kakne} capability manifests itself >>>differently among each of the bridi places. Specifically the capacity >>>of a goer to be a goer is expressible as something like {lo ka ka'e >>>klama}, while the capacity to be a place gone-to is {lo ka ka'e se >>>klama} -- assuming that {ka'e} carries from {kakne}, which is >>>something that xorxes disputes. >> >>But of course the capability of lo klama to be such is the capability to >>klama x2 x3 x4 x5, and its capability is dependent on the values of x2, x3, >>x4, and x5, and correspondingly, the claim seems evident that this is >>strongly associated with the capability of that x2 to se klama x1 x3 x4 x5, >>and with the capability of x3 to te klama x2 x1 x4 x5, etc. >> > > I agree that there is a family of co-dependent capabilities. Nora and I were discussing this topic yesterday, and she posed that the explicit way of referring to just one of these capabilies would be to mark the relevant sumti with kau, with the unmarked form technically being nonspecific as to which of the co-dependent capabilities is being focused on. Thus the typical interpretation of lo nanla cu ka'e limna is lo nanla kau cu ka'e limna I like this, but it presents a possible overloading of kau if there are more than one reason to mark a bridi, such as mi djuno ledu'u la nanla kau ka'e djuno makau intending I know where the boy is capable of swimming. The rub > in the context of the larger discussion is the exact relationship of > this family to {cumki}. Supposing for a moment that it could be > purified of obvious malrarna, I would still say that {kakne} makes a > stronger claim than {cumki} does, because the former imputes to an > individual in the actual world an inherent property, whereas the > latter merely claims that the overall proposition is possible, or to > put it equivalently, that it is true in some possible state of > affairs. There is in my mind some difference in meaning between cumki and kakne, and that may be it, but I will remain uncommitted. > What we want out of {ka'e} is only the latter, and if it > can't guarantee that, then something else is needed IMHO. You are saying that we WANT a cumki rather than a kakne meaning for use in the contrast between the various CAhAs? > On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Bob LeChevalier, President and > Founder - LLG wrote: > >>I think Plan B was whimsical sketch on purpose, intending to make fun of >>the perfectionists who were perpetually proposing something new and >>different to reform the language. > > I don't know. It was written in a pretty deadpan tone. Jeff is that way. >>My insight, such as it was, is that for a language to be a LANGUAGE, the >>significance of a stable and active user base is all important. A >>theoretical construct that no one (or only the inventor) uses might be more >>logical, but it would not really be a language. I did not win friends in >>the conlang community with this attitude %^) > > Well, even as a "perfectionist" that might disagree with you, I'd say > you must have done something right, because the fact of the matter is > that Lojban is the only game in town. TLI Loglan still exists with a very small rump community (some of whom are also Lojbanists). I am not sure WHY someone would use TLI Loglan instead of Lojban, but they do. lojbab -- 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.