Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 2001:470:8:42:2c0:f0ff:fe3b:b5b5 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of phma@bezitopo.org) client-ip=2001:470:8:42:2c0:f0ff:fe3b:b5b5;
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@bezitopo.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 09:04:08 -0400
Message-ID: <5556916.ZnGeyDiHF3@caracal>
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.5 (Linux/3.2.0-44-generic; KDE/4.8.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com>
References: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 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
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:  On Saturday, June 15, 2013 22:11:01 la arxokuna wrote: > However,
    jvs <http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/mi%27o> has two definitions, > the
   second one (by selpahi) defining {mi'o} as "mi jo'u do" entered in > December
    2012. I don't remember any discussions of this issue at that time. > > I
   don't know if it should be {ro mi'o bevri} vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri} or > {ro
   lu'a mi'o bevri} vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri}. > > So should we change the CLL to
    say it means {jo'u}, not {joi}? [...] 
 
 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: lojban.org]
 -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

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 22:11:01 la arxokuna wrote:
> However, jvs <http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/mi%27o> has two definitions,
> the second one (by selpahi) defining  {mi'o} as "mi jo'u do" entered in
> December 2012. I don't remember any discussions of this issue at that time.
> 
> I don't know if  it should be  {ro mi'o bevri} vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri}  or
> {ro lu'a mi'o bevri} vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri}.
> 
> So should we change the CLL to say it means {jo'u}, not {joi}?

Lojban lacks grammatical number, even in pronouns, but has clusivity. I 
thought they were ambiguous as to whether they mean individuals or masses; if 
you want to specify, you can say "lu'o" or "lu'a".

Pierre
-- 
ve ka'a ro klaji la .romas. se jmaji

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