Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.19;
Message-ID: <51B48B09.2080709@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 16:02:49 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla
References: <51A6685C.3010505@lojban.org> <CAMKwHj3gpou-t-6wPOLP7TCXdGhVGU2z+H-z4g=yGJK8Yg2gEg@mail.gmail.com> <51A8680E.7040103@lojban.org> <CAMKwHj3+aWwW0E3QP271aRNP8oKMy9hNDipjypX6hhJkauM+_A@mail.gmail.com> <51A8F326.2020901@lojban.org> <51A8F89D.2040408@gmx.de> <51B00097.8080004@lojban.org> <51B06D24.6020102@gmx.de> <51B46762.8080509@lojban.org> <51B47305.4020704@gmx.de> <20130609133526.GD24964@samsa.fritz.box>
In-Reply-To: <20130609133526.GD24964@samsa.fritz.box>
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; format=flowed
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:  la .van. cu cusku di'e > On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 02:20:21PM
    +0200, selpa'i wrote: >> la .lojbab. cu cusku di'e >>> But that isn't the
    case for Lojban. >> >> You seem to be alone in thinking that (see other people's
    responses). > > Hold it right there. He's definitely not. It's just that
   some people > who produce most noise - not judging whether this is good or
    bad - on this list > oppose it. That doesn't mean nobody else has the same
    opinion. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED          ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
                             See
                             http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
                              for more information.
                             [URIs: googlegroups.com]
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (seladwa[at]gmx.de)
 -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

la .van. cu cusku di'e
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 02:20:21PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
>> la .lojbab. cu cusku di'e
>>> But that isn't the case for Lojban.
>>
>> You seem to be alone in thinking that (see other people's responses).
>
> Hold it right there. He's definitely not. It's just that some people
> who produce most noise - not judging whether this is good or bad - on this list
> oppose it. That doesn't mean nobody else has the same opinion.

Then they should speak up and add to the discussion. If, in discussion 
X, something gets decided, then person Y that never cared to participate 
in discussion X should not complain about the outcome. In other words, 
if you want your opinion to be heard, then let it be heard. Otherwise it 
can be asumed you don't have an opinion or don't have an interest in the 
outcome of the discussion.

> I also assume most people don't care at all wondering why there's so much fuss
> over this.
>
>> But the accepted definition of {la} is:
>>
>> la broda == lo selcme be zo broda
>
> No, it is not. The last "accepted" "definition" of {la} is in xorlo which states
>
> la [PA] broda - zo'e noi lu [PA] broda li'u cmene ke'a mi
>
> I'm not sure that is the same thing.

That's the same definition, just expanded.

lo broda = zo'e noi broda

la broda = lo selcme be zo broda = zo'e noi ke'a selcme zo broda

> At least the full structure of the subsentence
> includes {zo'e}s, so you can't get around them at all levels.

The {lo}-version also has {zo'e}:

lo selcme = lo selcme be zo'e bei zo'e

There is no difference.

> Another rather simple observation: Whether or not {la selpa'i}
> is decided to have some semantic connection to {prami}, you're not able to make
> people ignore connotations of the word you're uttering.
> Psychological fact (if such things even exist).
> Therefore, if I read {la tsani}, I will think of the person AND I will think
> of sky. Same for {selpa'i}. So if you don't want me to think of "beloved"
> when I read about you, pick a different name.

Connotation is not outlawed, but {la} only denotes. I don't mind if you 
get reminded of the brivla {selpa'i} when you see {la selpa'i}, but you 
should mainly think of me or someone else that goes by that name. {la 
tsani} has nothing to do with skies, and if you cannot ignore the gismu 
meaning, then that's your problem of reading too much into names. I 
think of Jacob Errington, not of the sky, when I see {la tsani}.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i


-- 
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=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.