Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 85.13.138.119 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of me@v4hn.de) client-ip=85.13.138.119;
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 23:54:38 +0200
From: v4hn <me@v4hn.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla
Message-ID: <20130530215438.GU3114@samsa.fritz.box>
References: <CAHxnAmJvBZ1_4S1OF45n3dd5g2iQmFEGiQbsyBTN6PwybsNkrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <51A379EF.3020803@gmx.de>
 <CAHxnAm+HZGvy=Ck9nvogsR_uHL=+BYPho6vDKe8WGp-H4xKmEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <51A6685C.3010505@lojban.org>
 <CAMKwHj3gpou-t-6wPOLP7TCXdGhVGU2z+H-z4g=yGJK8Yg2gEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxnAmJELwg6ke9jDbOqyoR-f=dy4nK+rENyH609tdOdM1D4jQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxnAmLDc51aG9_aW49KUaVYZgyY4FeDtKUx=9usU8T9BW7jJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxnAmLW8b8so=-j-A_P0aHtL-MwH2goo_Jnx=uRpYWzHuxENw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130530211535.GT3114@samsa.fritz.box>
 <51A7C4B8.7010900@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5KENZRfAmuo1v8rU"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51A7C4B8.7010900@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
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:  This pretty much sounds like you don't want {lo selpa'i karce}
    to possibly mean {lo karce pe la selpa'i}. v4hn [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -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


--5KENZRfAmuo1v8rU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This pretty much sounds like you don't want

{lo selpa'i karce} to possibly mean {lo karce pe la selpa'i}.


v4hn

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:29:28PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
> la .van. cu cusku di'e
> >Actually since someone first told me that brivla are allowed
> >cmene I always disliked even that quite a lot. It's too easy to confuse
> >these "names" with the bridi meaning.
>=20
> Then how do people not get confused about someone being called Amado
> or Aim=C3=A9? And even if they do, I'm confident that you can tell apart
> {la} from {lo}, which are even clearer.
>=20
> >Nothing against you selpa'i,
> >but you're definitely not my beloved and if e.g. {coi selpa'i} leaves
> >this open, I'm pretty pissed.
>=20
> On IRC at least, {coi broda} is considered the same as {coi le
> broda}, not {coi la broda}.
>=20
> To me, {coi selpa'i} greets someone beloved, not someone named
> "selpa'i". If you want to greet me, say {coi la selpa'i} or I won't
> assume you mean me.
>=20
> >Also in NatLangs not having this distinction
> >can introduce formal ambiguities for colloquial speech (german: "Der Mue=
ller
> >ist zuverlaessig" - {la OR lo mlopre cu se lacri}).
>=20
> But not in Lojban. We have la and lo to disambiguate.
>=20
> >I strongly agree with la lojbab on that one:
> >brivla are nicknames, NOT proper names.
>=20
> I don't see why that should be so. Seems quite arbitrary.
>=20
> >If you wish to make them names, use cmene that look similar
> >or end in non-final rafsi.
>=20
> My name is "selpa'i" and nothing else. I do not identify with any
> other string of letters. My name is not {.selpa'is.} and also not
> {.selpam.}, those are entirely different names.
>=20
> mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--5KENZRfAmuo1v8rU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlGnyp4ACgkQMBKLZs4+wjygPgCeIhVO/jA69ErgN7oCDyE1EfSX
WzkAn3FmQ6Mgcd/9rYouaMpl+2hgtcfM
=W0+I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5KENZRfAmuo1v8rU--