Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:55322) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RYeRu-0005NB-S6; Thu, 08 Dec 2011 05:55:53 -0800 Received: by dajx4 with SMTP id x4sf1946899daj.16 for ; Thu, 08 Dec 2011 05:55:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-pgp-key :x-pgp-keyid:x-cunselcu'a-valsi:user-agent: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; bh=PbGnl3UHcRiA/e01kNCJ7L9mIXeYN2uogydJZRD0xjo=; b=SxYdp8w78MMMoxv2vQj6Ywyfnsq/vK0bYsklpeIX0UcEnR9RmtFfndVimL4Hzflg+F 2pf0uu3ME21vJbZ+8pvPaGs/Bi5lb34uSc5HDfAC+zhaI2YZgizwkbb467Rqp7aeNed6 BurSbDZ3jfcH6RL01biDlM79agWKAPWSe7cqU= Received: by 10.68.73.71 with SMTP id j7mr986701pbv.19.1323352538217; Thu, 08 Dec 2011 05:55:38 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.68.14.101 with SMTP id o5ls7044250pbc.4.gmail; Thu, 08 Dec 2011 05:55:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.21.165 with SMTP id w5mr5121539pbe.7.1323352537507; Thu, 08 Dec 2011 05:55:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.21.165 with SMTP id w5mr5121538pbe.7.1323352537494; Thu, 08 Dec 2011 05:55:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x5si8279695pbb.1.2011.12.08.05.55.37 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 08 Dec 2011 05:55:37 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.94.73.19; Received: from gonzales.homelinux.org (root@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pB8Dtaa5008686 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 13:55:36 GMT Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1RYVrA-0001bs-8R for lojban@googlegroups.com; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 23:45:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 23:45:16 -0500 From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] state of {binxo} Message-ID: <20111208044516.GB16975@gonzales> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6 X-cunselcu'a-valsi: stela User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.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: , X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Spam_score: 1.1 X-Spam_score_int: 11 X-Spam_bar: + X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: * Monday, 2011-12-05 at 13:15 -0300 - Felipe Gonçalves Assis : > Is there a consensus about the nature of binxo2? I mostly see > non-properties there, but I am not sure how to interpret that. > > I noticed that there was some discussions on the subject long ago, > but I didn't find any conclusion in favour of the object-object version > of {binxo}. [...] Content analysis details: (1.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.1 DATE_IN_PAST_06_12 Date: is 6 to 12 hours before Received: date -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature --LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Monday, 2011-12-05 at 13:15 -0300 - Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis : > Is there a consensus about the nature of binxo2? I mostly see > non-properties there, but I am not sure how to interpret that. >=20 > I noticed that there was some discussions on the subject long ago, > but I didn't find any conclusion in favour of the object-object version > of {binxo}. I don't know what sense object-object binxo might make. But for the meaning "x1 starts to have property x2", we can be more explicit by using {kaicfa}. This also gets rid of the pesky "under conditions x3" place of {binxo}. The Lynchian Mentat mantra, as an example: mi zu'e po'o tolcadgau le mi menli i ri'a tu'a le jisra be la safus le pensi kantu cu kaicfa le ka sutra i le ctebi cu kaicfa le ka se barna i le barna cu kaicfa le ka kajde i mi zu'e po'o tolcadgau le mi menli (original: It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. ) Martin --LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk7gQNwACgkQULC7OLX7LNbyJQCgqNx+xmx0MjJ8TXhsW3Dp/LEz JKwAoKmCry/1PUGh5XMW5Fwl5szTd4KO =dLE2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG--