Received: from mail-wg0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]:36254)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxCvtKqBBRoEr2owCA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1T1Lwl-0003qr-2C; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:34:43 -0700
Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13sf212785wgb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent
         :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
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=HHj8aS8+6GvRKIgCPAcxCgw5BrNGa+MdFhCHAp3++Vw=;
        b=LQjAgFZLT4UQRgzw0Os6C5wcvcU0PmVfjQRhBGNqRcxboebHmWlS8iepS7fl0cV8zL
         rT5zIplRfH5tQyjKtYaELDtePoIHdRaW7j6rAWMg3rPAVSCbeFNRfN5SJB/MwvXFVwOH
         yv4njkMDi+LuFhy6LKt5W3aCcjZU0cFgoVApQ=
Received: by 10.180.96.65 with SMTP id dq1mr1177723wib.2.1344969263428;
        Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.14.224.130 with SMTP id x2ls273424eep.7.gmail; Tue, 14 Aug
 2012 11:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.179.72 with SMTP id g48mr11045120eem.2.1344969262629;
        Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.179.72 with SMTP id g48mr11045119eem.2.1344969262617;
        Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-f48.google.com (mail-ee0-f48.google.com [74.125.83.48])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d5si4304507eep.0.2012.08.14.11.34.22
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.83.48;
Received: by eekd41 with SMTP id d41so277839eek.21
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.202.66 with SMTP id c42mr20792871eeo.35.1344969262522;
        Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.77] (87-194-76-177.bethere.co.uk. [87.194.76.177])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h42sm8880770eem.5.2012.08.14.11.34.20
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <502A9A2C.20606@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:34:20 +0100
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Revising mu'ei and CAhA once again. Possible worlds.
References: <e09a669e-9fdd-47c1-968a-014ec72e933e@googlegroups.com> <502A81EB.2000005@gmail.com> <fbfa4089-61e9-4b2a-b858-8ec8b42f85bd@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <fbfa4089-61e9-4b2a-b858-8ec8b42f85bd@googlegroups.com>
X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.48 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=and.rosta@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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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:  Gleki Arxokuna, On 14/08/2012 18:23: > I wish Robin started
    using {mu'ei} again but > it's really when usage decides. May be human brain
    just doesn't want > to deal with A-level at such level of precision. May
   be {ka'e/na > ka'e/ka'ei/bia'i} or even {bi'ai} is enough. [...] 
 
 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
                             (and.rosta[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
  0.1 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

Gleki Arxokuna, On 14/08/2012 18:23:
> I wish Robin started using {mu'ei} again but
> it's really when usage decides. May be human brain just doesn't want
> to deal with A-level at such level of precision. May be {ka'e/na
> ka'e/ka'ei/bia'i} or even {bi'ai} is enough.

The evidence of natural language is to the contrary. The could/probably/wou=
ld contrast is the some/most/all contrast.

> The use of {da'i} is interesting. For a logical language it's
> completely deplorable, because there's a complete mismatch between
> the lexicosyntactic form and the logical form, and no explicit rule
> about how to get from one to the other -- it works by mere stipulated
> magic. But it caught on among those impatient to be actively using
> the language, and nicely illustrated the fundamental incompatibility
> between a loglang and a language governed by the principle of "let
> usage decide".
>
> May be we can determine the most common usage of {da'i} and redefine
> it from the point of view of A/M/F-level scheme? May be we should
> perform analysis of Lojban corpus and tatoeba sentences?

{da'i} is in UI, isn't it? So it doesn't have the right grammatical propert=
ies.

The purest ways to proceed would be either (1) to define things so that the=
y're logical and regular, regardless of usage, i.e. basically just implemen=
t all xorxes's proposals, or (2) to treat the language as an inchoate natla=
ng, a la Lojbab, and abduce grammar out of usage as linguistics of natlangs=
 does.

--And.

--=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.