Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:41773)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIfp7ILVEBDWqYz3BBoEJwkHNw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RZI4d-0006uc-MJ; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:14:29 -0800
Received: by dajx4 with SMTP id x4sf4138556daj.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:14:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version: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=mPJclhelPn+UseBOcyzgRYjtjrCZmbj2I5YqzNuBd7Q=;
        b=cxTRYol09OY4b0Unfm7sjJfz1MuMsmS8nNMKVgvYsLAXdJsJPvxRnbKVptTGVrieu1
         7/OCJ5LB/nJFcy/Te7Ra+FWIllGIj//csi/0uanjs6NYz8dtHnEAn8fUm4frz9lHAsLa
         JXrRXfroSsfafJzgjEWJSRgHmF5KTSHBh+04c=
Received: by 10.68.73.8 with SMTP id h8mr58310pbv.7.1323504854923;
        Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:14:14 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.156.102 with SMTP id wd6ls6639564pbb.2.gmail; Sat, 10 Dec
 2011 00:14:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.189.194 with SMTP id gk2mr4018017pbc.3.1323504853768;
        Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:14:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.189.194 with SMTP id gk2mr4018016pbc.3.1323504853757;
        Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:14:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pz0-f47.google.com (mail-pz0-f47.google.com [209.85.210.47])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n6si5367589pbg.2.2011.12.10.00.14.13
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:14:13 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.47;
Received: by dake40 with SMTP id e40so4919035dak.34
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:14:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.73.1 with SMTP id h1mr13210042pbv.106.1323504853574; Sat,
 10 Dec 2011 00:14:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.52.234 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:14:13 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 05:14:13 -0300
Message-ID: <CALMa68o5i3O56oY8CN_pCKZAWhVvcpqZs1aiqXeBQ8pSk+Ca_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] Update on gadri Proposal
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: felipeg.assis@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.47 as permitted
 sender) smtp.mail=felipeg.assis@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: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

Now that the formal definition of {PA broda} has been updated in the
gadri Proposal, there are other parts of it that need to be adjusted.
The first paragraph, defining {lo}, still says
"
When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier, lo can be omi=
tted.
"

I think this should be replaced by an exemplified explanation of the differ=
ences
between {PA broda} and {PA lo broda}.

Maybe some of the examples should be reviewed as well.
I find the parenthesised {lo} in the following particularly misleading.
"
o'i mu (lo) xagji sofybakni cu zvati le purdi
Caution! There are five hungry Soviet cows in the garden.
"

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

2011/12/9 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>>
>> Another side-issue (which I maybe shouldn't mention but will anyway) is
>> what {PA plise} abbreviates. Is it short for {PA da poi plise} where
>> {da} isn't already bound - which saves at least two syllables and saves
>> us having to bind a new da? Or is it short for {PA lo plise} - which
>> just saves one syllable? The usage here, lojbanic history and the
>> demands of efficiency all point towards the former, but the gadri
>> proposal currently states the latter.
>>
>> If that change is to be reverted, I think it would be best to do it
>> sooner rather than later.
>
> Done.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
> --
> 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@googlegr=
oups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb=
an?hl=3Den.
>

--=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.