Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.225 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.236.225;
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> <1370811519.81380.YahooMailNeo@web184403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <CAO7tK2fwYJQcj9QPZ4Bo7r+yYE-B9-gauEWWHg8CPFNE_hU9MA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1370813476.27765.YahooMailNeo@web184405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:31:16 -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: <CAO7tK2fwYJQcj9QPZ4Bo7r+yYE-B9-gauEWWHg8CPFNE_hU9MA@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="-1412092350-1356270308-1370813476=:27765"
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:  Well, Lojbab's position is close to incomprehensible to me,
    too, but he has maintained it for several days now without falter: if {la
    tsani} is somebody's name, then {la tsani be zo'e} is that person's name
   as well, just as if {lo tsani} is a correct description of a thing {lo tsani
    be zo'e} is. I was inclined to think Lb was just being overemphatic at first,
    meaning that if one could be used as a name, the other could to, even though
    no one probably would. But he did persist and say, in effect, that they were
    all names for that person,even if no one named him such. [...] 
 
 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
                             (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 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

---1412092350-1356270308-1370813476=:27765
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well, Lojbab's position is close to incomprehensible to me, too, but he has=
 maintained it for several days now without falter: if {la tsani} is somebo=
dy's name, then {la tsani be zo'e} is that person's name as well, just as i=
f {lo tsani} is a correct description of a thing {lo tsani be zo'e} is.=A0 =
I was inclined to think Lb was just being overemphatic at first, meaning th=
at if one could be used as a name, the other could to, even though no one p=
robably would.=A0 But he did persist and say, in effect, that they were all=
 names for that person,even if no one named him such.=20

As for your position, you have said it explicitly several times: {la tsani}=
 refers to the first place of {tsani}.=A0 You do manage to wiggle a lot on =
that, making {la} even vaguer than {le}.=A0 The point is that, if you reall=
y agree with the view that {la} just uses the word detached from its semant=
ics and syntax as much as may be, you have no ground for talking about the =
first place of the predicate that word happens most normally to be.=A0 But =
in talking about selpa'i you placed him in the first position and Lb suppli=
ed the second.=A0=20


________________________________
 From: Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com=20
Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2013 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla
=20


On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:58 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrot=
e:

=A0 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 t=
he first argument just as the description does (though he admits that the a=
pplication may not be as direct in the LA as in the case of LE -- except, o=
f course, when the sumti-tail is a cmevla, when it is direct and veridical =
and all those good things.=A0

That doesn't seem to fit my opinion at all. I agree with selpa'i, tsani, an=
d CLL on this.

=A0
Lojbab, keeping the two separate, still thinks that LA treats sumti-tails j=
ust like LE does; in this case, by including all the implicit {zo'e} (thoug=
h he admits tsani might not want to recognize that as his name nor anyone u=
se it of him).=A0 Finally, selpa'i (having been told collectively by xorxes=
 and Lojbab that he is someone's beloved, like it or not)=20

Huh? I don't have any reason to doubt he is someone's beloved, but I would =
never infer that from his name.
=A0

maintains that LA in fact treats sumti-tails differently from the way LE do=
es, name taking them as mere words without any necessary connection to thei=
r normal meaning or grammar.=A0=20

And that's the only sensible position, and also the official one as present=
ed in CLL. The position you attribute to Lojbab is close to incomprehensibl=
e to me.

=A0mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=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.


---1412092350-1356270308-1370813476=:27765
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"><div><span>Well, Lojb=
ab's position is close to incomprehensible to me, too, but he has maintaine=
d it for several days now without falter: if {la tsani} is somebody's name,=
 then {la tsani be zo'e} is that person's name as well, just as if {lo tsan=
i} is a correct description of a thing {lo tsani be zo'e} is.&nbsp; I was i=
nclined to think Lb was just being overemphatic at first, meaning that if o=
ne could be used as a name, the other could to, even though no one probably=
 would.&nbsp; But he did persist and say, in effect, that they were all nam=
es for that person,even if no one named him such. <br></span></div><div sty=
le=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: times new roman,ne=
w york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><sp=
an>As for your position, you have said it explicitly several times: {la
 tsani} refers to the first place of {tsani}.&nbsp; You do manage to wiggle=
 a lot on that, making {la} even vaguer than {le}.&nbsp; The point is that,=
 if you really agree with the view that {la} just uses the word detached fr=
om its semantics and syntax as much as may be, you have no ground for talki=
ng about the first place of the predicate that word happens most normally t=
o be.&nbsp; But in talking about selpa'i you placed him in the first positi=
on and Lb supplied the second.&nbsp; <br></span></div><div><br></div>  <div=
 style=3D"font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: =
12pt;"> <div style=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> Jorge Ll=
amb=EDas &lt;jjllambias@gmail.com&gt;<br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight: bo=
ld;">To:</span></b> lojban@googlegroups.com <br> <b><span style=3D"font-wei=
ght:
 bold;">Sent:</span></b> Sunday, June 9, 2013 4:09 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>
<div id=3D"yiv1389102267"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"yiv1389102267g=
mail_extra"><div class=3D"yiv1389102267gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at =
5:58 PM, John E Clifford <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a rel=3D"nofollow" ymailto=
=3D"mailto:kali9putra@yahoo.com" target=3D"_blank" href=3D"mailto:kali9putr=
a@yahoo.com">kali9putra@yahoo.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"yiv1389102267gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;b=
order-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div><div style=3D"font-size:1=
2pt;font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;">&nbsp; In the pre=
sent case, xorxes, while moving toward including cmevla among brivla, takes=
 the fact that LA and LE take the identically specified sumti-tails to infe=
r that they treat them the same way, so the name applies to the first argum=
ent 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 cme=
vla, when it is direct and veridical and all those good things.&nbsp;</div>=
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style=3D"">That doesn't seem to fit =
my opinion at all. I agree with selpa'i, tsani, and CLL on this.</div>
<div><br></div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"yiv1389102267gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;=
"><div><div style=3D"font-size:12pt;font-family:times new roman, new york, =
times, serif;"> Lojbab, keeping the two separate, still thinks that LA trea=
ts sumti-tails just like LE does; in this case, by including all the implic=
it {zo'e} (though he admits tsani might not want to recognize that as his n=
ame nor anyone use it of him).&nbsp; Finally, selpa'i (having been told col=
lectively by xorxes and Lojbab that he is someone's beloved, like it or not=
) </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style=3D"">Huh? I don't have any rea=
son to doubt he is someone's beloved, but I would never infer that from his=
 name.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"yiv1389102=
267gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex;">
<div><div style=3D"font-size:12pt;font-family:times new roman, new york, ti=
mes, serif;">maintains that LA in fact treats sumti-tails differently from =
the way LE does, name taking them as mere words without any necessary conne=
ction to their normal meaning or grammar.&nbsp; </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style=3D"">And that's the only sensi=
ble position, and also the official one as presented in CLL. The position y=
ou attribute to Lojbab is close to incomprehensible to me.</div><div><br>
</div><div style=3D"">&nbsp;mu'o mi'e xorxes</div><div style=3D""><br></div=
></div></div></div>


-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" 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 http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.<br>
For more options, visit <a rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank" href=3D"https=
://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_o=
ut</a>.<br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;<br>
</div><br><br></div> </div> </div>  </div></body></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 />

---1412092350-1356270308-1370813476=:27765--