Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 72.30.238.133 as permitted sender) client-ip=72.30.238.133;
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] questions about lojban
References: <dee20715-897b-40fd-b3b1-292017750384@googlegroups.com> <20130520214048.GA3114@samsa.fritz.box> <CA+gZtgKmsBFMhcSuH4L4NMLSvq-u6u101x+brNT1eAwFDQFU9A@mail.gmail.com> <20130520221213.GB3114@samsa.fritz.box> <CA+gZtgKukqKxw6xcnA2kMbSd5cTp4PCkc+pq+-QwgLPCSFCR2Q@mail.gmail.com> <f03b55fef408e1a5c307cedec84557f5@plasmatix.com> <519B59B4.8020404@lojban.org> <ff1a6f01f9f4c084647a58733eeaa1eb@plasmatix.com> <CAMKwHj3psDe1bXsjQo9QPJt9vYohkrLT1ST1oFrYUtAbMsyiZg@mail.gmail.com> <519B8B71.90800@gmx.de> <CAMKwHj1-RUJy1JYYemDiCxbOe0fmCzuoWeOO9VHPOPtpOxTT_Q@mail.gmail.com> <519B9D34.3010704@gmx.de> <1369156225.81761.YahooMailNeo@web184402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <519BB664.7010505@gmx.de> <1369170061.60970.YahooMailNeo@web184403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <519D1E23.3010406@gmx.de>
From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <519D1E23.3010406@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <1244129F-5B30-472A-A3A9-7308BFBBECF9@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 16:08:10 -0500
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: 1.0
X-Spam_score_int: 10
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:  Oh, hot damn! I haven't seen a myopic singular in a while.
    -- nor an explanation or justification in even longer. It would be strange
    for a myopic singular (in the & sense) to do anything, including exist or
    even be. But there is nothing odd about {lo tadni cu sruri lo dinja}, from
    which I would infer-- did I not know it already -- that the expression doesn't
    refer to such things (whatever they may be said to be), but just to ordinary
    tadni and dinja going about their ordinary business in ordinary ways. [...]
    
 
 Content analysis details:   (1.0 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (kali9putra[at]yahoo.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
  1.0 FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD      'From' yahoo.com does not match 'Received' headers
  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

Oh, hot damn!  I haven't seen a myopic singular in a while. -- nor an expla=
nation or justification in even longer.  It would be strange for a myopic s=
ingular (in the & sense) to do anything, including exist or even be.  But t=
here is nothing odd about {lo tadni cu sruri lo dinja}, from which I would =
infer-- did I not know it already -- that the expression doesn't refer to s=
uch things (whatever they may be said to be), but just to ordinary tadni  a=
nd dinja going about their ordinary business in ordinary ways.

Sent from my iPad

On May 22, 2013, at 14:36, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

> la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e
>> Your final comments raise the issue of what your xorlo is
>> like -- clearly different from mine ("salient node ...") and apparently
>> making {lo broda} applicable to things totally unlike brodas (which
>> might, I suppose, be particularly bad cases of {le broda}).
>=20
> I wasn't presenting my view of xorlo, but merely asking a hypothetical qu=
estion. Some of this comes from the time when {ci lo mu bakni} meant "three=
 groups of five cows" and {PA lo broda} was defined to be quantifying over =
a singluar Broda (so the {lo} could be dropped). The final version of xorlo=
 doesn't have this anymore, so now {lo broda} must be able to create plural=
 groups, which it obviously does, or else lo tadni could not sruri a dinju.=
 Still, I'm not sure if, when taking {lo tadni} to be singular even in the =
sruri case, it's just English that makes it sound strange, or if it really =
is strange. By my comment I was trying to "invite" people to try to think a=
bout this very question but without going through English first and to see =
if there might not be some sense in it. In more slightly different terms: W=
ould it be strange for a myopic singular student to surround a building?
>=20
> mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
>=20
> --=20
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups=
 "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an=
 email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>=20
>=20

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.