Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]:52669)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCKOXn8wTEOPflIEFGgSBROXW@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Szrcf-0000Fq-VE; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:59:49 -0700
Received: by yhoo21 with SMTP id o21sf1792979yho.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject
         :mime-version: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=FiOjmLyFa5CeNCXZnkPyMuX/fAQ+Ya5BLmuDAvVs01Y=;
        b=Itns9gQv+4YstXhDcXMPAFiF8dP2ojBSu0GI+hNynzCEB5VPFW++XZ1r8TvppDRVhv
         +vXgLyeNk3BpEkLE9iR7XDsDO8DrGCIFnv1RGfGeicG/yivMOSaUfxtX3zwWm62QuW9p
         qdqtgPTbT+pytZtEMrgJWLEKYdfVpFtF13Ztk=
Received: by 10.68.221.67 with SMTP id qc3mr749236pbc.7.1344614371166;
        Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.197.72 with SMTP id is8ls9847713pbc.5.gmail; Fri, 10 Aug
 2012 08:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.204.6 with SMTP id ku6mr264710pbc.3.1344614370445;
        Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <f06ed3b1-7f54-4350-b9fb-ca5aaadc1802@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <50252AA7.6070301@gmx.de>
References: <f36b517b-87d9-4aac-bfd7-b33d226bf46a@googlegroups.com>
 <50252AA7.6070301@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [lojban] {.au}/{djica}={.ai}/{?}. No gismu for intention
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
 gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates internal as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com; dkim=pass
 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: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_107_5148047.1344614370079"
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 1
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:  On Friday, August 10, 2012 7:37:11 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:
    > > Am 10.08.2012 16:54, schrieb Gleki Arxokuna: > > If the difference between
    {.ai} and {.au} is so important then why there > is no gismu for "intention"?
    > Just {zukte djica}? Just a metaphorical tanru? Or a lujvo again derived
    > from {djica}? > And why such a huge bias in favor of cmavo and not predicates
    in a *predicate > language*? > > > .ai = zukte > Someone does something (zukte2)
    for some purpose (zukte3), all of which is > intentional. > The purpose (zukte3)
    of action z2 is what their intention is in doing > zukte2. (Wow, that is
   horribly phrased.) > {zukte} = "to intend"? the definition says nothing about
    that. It should be clarified, that is changed. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (gleki.is.my.name[at]gmail.com)
  0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
                             CUSTOM_MED
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID         DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid

------=_Part_107_5148047.1344614370079
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1



On Friday, August 10, 2012 7:37:11 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:
>
>  Am 10.08.2012 16:54, schrieb Gleki Arxokuna:
>  
> If the difference between {.ai} and {.au} is so important then why there 
> is no gismu for "intention"? 
> Just {zukte djica}? Just a metaphorical tanru? Or a lujvo again derived 
> from {djica}?
> And why such a huge bias in favor of cmavo and not predicates in a *predicate 
> language*?
>
>
> .ai = zukte
> Someone does something (zukte2) for some purpose (zukte3), all of which is 
> intentional. 
> The purpose (zukte3) of action z2 is what their intention is in doing 
> zukte2.  (Wow, that is horribly phrased.)
>
{zukte} = "to intend"? the definition says nothing about that. It should be 
clarified, that is changed.

> Maybe an example will be helpful.
>
> .ai mi na za'u re'u citka lo rectu
> ~=
> mi zukte fi lo nu na ze'u re'u citka lo rectu
>
> You could ask what the zukte2 would be in such cases. I think, often 
> zukte2 and zukte3 can be identical. The action is also the intention, that 
> is, the action is 'intentional'.
>
> mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
>
>  -- 
> pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/SyVTc295WOIJ.
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.


------=_Part_107_5148047.1344614370079
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br>On Friday, August 10, 2012 7:37:11 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:<blockqu=
ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left=
: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
 =20
   =20
 =20
  <div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000">
    <div><tt>Am 10.08.2012 16:54, schrieb Gleki
        Arxokuna:<br>
      </tt></div>
    <blockquote type=3D"cite"><tt>If the difference between {.ai} and {.au}=
 is so
        important then why there is no gismu for "intention"?</tt>
      <div><tt>Just {zukte djica}? Just a metaphorical tanru? Or a lujvo
          again derived from {djica}?</tt></div>
      <div><tt>And why such a huge bias in favor of cmavo and not
          predicates in a <b>predicate language</b>?</tt></div>
    </blockquote>
    <tt><br>
      .ai =3D zukte<br>
      Someone does something (zukte2) for some purpose (zukte3), all of
      which is intentional. <br>
      The purpose (zukte3) of action z2 is what their intention is in
      doing zukte2.&nbsp; (Wow, that is horribly phrased.)<br></tt></div></=
blockquote><div>{zukte} =3D "to intend"? the definition says nothing about =
that. It should be clarified, that is changed.</div><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left: 1ex;"><div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000"><tt>
      Maybe an example will be helpful.<br>
      <br>
      .ai mi na za'u re'u citka lo rectu<br>
      ~=3D<br>
      mi zukte fi lo nu na ze'u re'u citka lo rectu<br>
      <br>
      You could ask what the zukte2 would be in such cases. I think,
      often zukte2 and zukte3 can be identical. The action is also the
      intention, that is, the action is 'intentional'.<br>
      <br>
      mu'o mi'e la selpa'i<br>
      <br>
    </tt>
    <pre cols=3D"72"><tt>--=20
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo</tt></p=
re>
  </div>

</blockquote>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msg/lojban/-/SyVTc295WOIJ">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/Sy=
VTc295WOIJ</a>.<br />=20
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.<br />



------=_Part_107_5148047.1344614370079--