Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.86 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.86;
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> <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> <CAHxnAmLDUzkGG14rFY9i-TUoOsBwEobXzj+dRV5GOZ-zqg2LNg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1370811519.81380.YahooMailNeo@web184403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 13:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHxnAmLDUzkGG14rFY9i-TUoOsBwEobXzj+dRV5GOZ-zqg2LNg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-6906265-1551449612-1370811519=:81380"
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:  Clarify? Probably not. But there are three factors involved
    here (at least): the official language as codified in CLL, the "current state
    of the language" which a group is supposed to be determining but hasn't worked
    on for years, and the various versions of the language which people are actually
    using (but people occasionally comment unfavorably on). CLL is incomplete,
    vague and contradictory; BPFK is silent, usage proceeds, often with incomplete
    or otherwise bad information. In the present case, xorxes, while moving toward
    including cmevla among brivla, takes the fact that LA and LE take the identically
    specified sumti-tails to infer that they treat them the same way, so the
   name applies to the first argument just as the description does (though he
    admits that the application may not be as direct in the LA as in the case
    of LE -- except, of course, when the sumti-tail is a cmevla, when it is direct
    and veridical and all those good things. Lojbab, keeping the two separate,
    still thinks that LA treats sumti-tails just like LE does; in this case,
   by including all the implicit {zo'e} (though he admits tsani might not want
    to recognize that as his name nor anyone use it of him). Finally, selpa'i
    (having been told collectively by xorxes and Lojbab that he is someone's
   beloved, like it or not) maintains that LA in fact treats sumti-tails differently
    from the way LE does, name taking them as mere words without any necessary
    connection to their normal meaning or grammar. The point is, all of these
    positions are firmly (well, ....) based on CLL and reflect actual usage as
    of now. They do not, so far as I can tell, make any difference at all (is
    that the "philosophical" sense of the connection between name and sumti-tail?).
    Taking, cmevla as a part of brivla would make a difference, allowing simple
    predicates, for example. And it would reinforce the first-term reading of
    {la} expressions (though not require it and certainly not make it more plausible).
    [...] 
 
 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
                             (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
  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 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

---6906265-1551449612-1370811519=:81380
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Clarify?=A0 Probably not.=A0 But there are three factors involved here (at =
least): the official language as codified in CLL, the "current state of the=
 language" which a group is supposed to be determining but hasn't worked on=
 for years, and the various versions of the language which people are actua=
lly using (but people occasionally comment unfavorably on).=A0 CLL is incom=
plete, vague and contradictory; BPFK is silent, usage proceeds, often with =
incomplete or otherwise bad information.=A0 In the present case, xorxes, wh=
ile moving toward including cmevla among brivla, takes the fact that LA and=
 LE take the identically specified sumti-tails to infer that they treat the=
m the same way, so the name applies to the first argument just as the descr=
iption does (though he admits that the application may not be as direct in =
the LA as in the case of LE -- except, of course, when the sumti-tail is a =
cmevla, when it is direct and veridical and all those good things.=A0
 Lojbab, keeping the two separate, still thinks that LA treats sumti-tails =
just like LE does; in this case, by including all the implicit {zo'e} (thou=
gh he admits tsani might not want to recognize that as his name nor anyone =
use it of him).=A0 Finally, selpa'i (having been told collectively by xorxe=
s and Lojbab that he is someone's beloved, like it or not) maintains that L=
A in fact treats sumti-tails differently from the way LE does, name taking =
them as mere words without any necessary connection to their normal meaning=
 or grammar.=A0 The point is, all of these positions are firmly (well, ....=
) based on CLL and reflect actual usage as of now.=A0 They do not, so far a=
s I can tell, make any difference at all (is that the "philosophical" sense=
 of the connection between name and sumti-tail?).=A0 Taking, cmevla as a pa=
rt of brivla would make a difference, allowing simple predicates, for examp=
le.=A0 And it would reinforce the first-term reading of {la} expressions
 (though not require it and certainly not make it more plausible).


________________________________
 From: Betsemes <betsemes@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com=20
Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2013 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla
=20

I see something strange here that I hope everyone help me to sort out.
Within this thread I have read the following:

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wro=
te:
> The name is the selbri, but there is a sense in which the first argument =
is
> selected, as with other gadri. In Spanish we have the names "Amado" and
> "Amador". We could "translate" these as "la selpa'i" and "la prami".

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LL=
G
> I wasn't talking about meaning, actually.=A0 I was talking about grammar.=
=A0 A
> brivla automatically invokes grammatically the attachment of places (exce=
pt
> when quoted with zo, or used as a delimiter in a zoi quote).

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:20 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
> As you say, {zo tsani} is just the "standalone language unit" "tsani", th=
e
> word itself, without any hidden places. But the accepted definition of {l=
a}
> is:
>
> la broda =3D=3D lo selcme be zo broda
>
> So you must have a different definition of {la} than everyone else.

xorxes explanation on "a sense" in which {la} selects the first
argument of the selbri being used as a name, is in conflict with
Selpa'i's stated definition of "la broda". In order for a {la} to be
able to select the x1 of a selbri, it must be a selbri, but if it's a
quoted word as Selpa'i's definition seems to tell, then it's just a
string of words devoided of meaning. Could someone clarify?

mu'o mi'e betsemes

--=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.

--=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.


---6906265-1551449612-1370811519=:81380
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body><div style=3D"color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:ti=
mes new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">Clarify?&nbsp; Probab=
ly not.&nbsp; But there are three factors involved here (at least): the off=
icial language as codified in CLL, the "current state of the language" whic=
h a group is supposed to be determining but hasn't worked on for years, and=
 the various versions of the language which people are actually using (but =
people occasionally comment unfavorably on).&nbsp; CLL is incomplete, vague=
 and contradictory; BPFK is silent, usage proceeds, often with incomplete o=
r otherwise bad information.&nbsp; In the present case, xorxes, while movin=
g toward including cmevla among brivla, takes the fact that LA and LE take =
the identically specified sumti-tails to infer that they treat them the sam=
e way, so the name applies to the first argument just as the description do=
es (though he admits that the application may not be as direct in the
 LA as in the case of LE -- except, of course, when the sumti-tail is a cme=
vla, when it is direct and veridical and all those good things.&nbsp; Lojba=
b, keeping the two separate, still thinks that LA treats sumti-tails just l=
ike LE does; in this case, by including all the implicit {zo'e} (though he =
admits tsani might not want to recognize that as his name nor anyone use it=
 of him).&nbsp; Finally, selpa'i (having been told collectively by xorxes a=
nd Lojbab that he is someone's beloved, like it or not) maintains that LA i=
n fact treats sumti-tails differently from the way LE does, name taking the=
m as mere words without any necessary connection to their normal meaning or=
 grammar.&nbsp; The point is, all of these positions are firmly (well, ....=
) based on CLL and reflect actual usage as of now.&nbsp; They do not, so fa=
r as I can tell, make any difference at all (is that the "philosophical" se=
nse of the connection between name and sumti-tail?).&nbsp; Taking,
 cmevla as a part of brivla would make a difference, allowing simple predic=
ates, for example.&nbsp; And it would reinforce the first-term reading of {=
la} expressions (though not require it and certainly not make it more plaus=
ible).<br><div><span><br></span></div><div><br></div>  <div style=3D"font-f=
amily: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div sty=
le=3D"font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt=
;"> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <hr size=3D"1">  <font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2"> <b>=
<span style=3D"font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Betsemes &lt;betsemes@gm=
ail.com&gt;<br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> lojban=
@googlegroups.com <br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></=
b> Sunday, June 9, 2013 12:19 PM<br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">=
Subject:</span></b> Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla<br> </font> </=
div> <div class=3D"y_msg_container"><br>
I see something strange here that I hope everyone help me to sort out.<br>W=
ithin this thread I have read the following:<br><br>On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at =
8:01 AM, Jorge Llamb=EDas &lt;<a ymailto=3D"mailto:jjllambias@gmail.com" hr=
ef=3D"mailto:jjllambias@gmail.com">jjllambias@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&=
gt; The name is the selbri, but there is a sense in which the first argumen=
t is<br>&gt; selected, as with other gadri. In Spanish we have the names "A=
mado" and<br>&gt; "Amador". We could "translate" these as "la selpa'i" and =
"la prami".<br><br>On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Bob LeChevalier, Preside=
nt and Founder - LLG<br>&gt; I wasn't talking about meaning, actually.&nbsp=
; I was talking about grammar.&nbsp; A<br>&gt; brivla automatically invokes=
 grammatically the attachment of places (except<br>&gt; when quoted with zo=
, or used as a delimiter in a zoi quote).<br><br>On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:2=
0 AM, selpa'i &lt;<a ymailto=3D"mailto:seladwa@gmx.de"
 href=3D"mailto:seladwa@gmx.de">seladwa@gmx.de</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&gt; As yo=
u say, {zo tsani} is just the "standalone language unit" "tsani", the<br>&g=
t; word itself, without any hidden places. But the accepted definition of {=
la}<br>&gt; is:<br>&gt;<br>&gt; la broda =3D=3D lo selcme be zo broda<br>&g=
t;<br>&gt; So you must have a different definition of {la} than everyone el=
se.<br><br>xorxes explanation on "a sense" in which {la} selects the first<=
br>argument of the selbri being used as a name, is in conflict with<br>Selp=
a'i's stated definition of "la broda". In order for a {la} to be<br>able to=
 select the x1 of a selbri, it must be a selbri, but if it's a<br>quoted wo=
rd as Selpa'i's definition seems to tell, then it's just a<br>string of wor=
ds devoided of meaning. Could someone clarify?<br><br>mu'o mi'e betsemes<br=
><br>-- <br>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goo=
gle Groups "lojban" group.<br>To unsubscribe from this group and stop
 receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+<a ymailto=3D"mailto:uns=
ubscribe@googlegroups.com" href=3D"mailto:unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">uns=
ubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>To post to this group, send email to <a y=
mailto=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroup=
s.com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>Visit this group at http://groups.go=
ogle.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.<br>For more options, visit <a href=3D"https:=
//groups.google.com/groups/opt_out" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google=
.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br><br><br><br><br></div> </div> </div>  </div></b=
ody></html>

<p></p>

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

---6906265-1551449612-1370811519=:81380--