Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.136.218.222 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.136.218.222;
Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?
References: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com> <51BDBA1D.80602@gmx.de> <CA+gZtgKULyTpGdDYwykN0H6bkUQJEVpoCSN=+PwCO4toXA+tGA@mail.gmail.com> <51BE419F.4090806@gmx.de> <1371434761.19218.YahooMailNeo@web184405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <51BEBACC.7090706@gmx.de> <1371471976.58028.YahooMailNeo@web184402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1371471976.58028.YahooMailNeo@web184402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-Id: <C23A8DD6-5030-4AC2-8883-0DA6BBB0857F@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:38:54 -0500
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (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: multipart/alternative;
	boundary=Apple-Mail-A27E0107-4788-4846-8FEE-EB1C3E854840
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam_score: 1.0
X-Spam_score_int: 10
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:  Sent from my iPad On Jun 17, 2013, at 7:26, John E Clifford
    <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote: > Well, it is Lojban terminology at work again:
    mi and do are sets, if anything with a name (L-sets), so "union" seems appropriate,
    while "along with" sounds like accompanying, not union. {lo}expressions are
    also sets in the same sense. If {lo'i} means something else, it means C-sets,
    which are virtually useless for linguistic purposes and belong, if at all,
    to MEX. > In passing, I note {me} being used for "is a member of", which
   is not what it means, although I suppose it does include that meaning as a
    remote part. > > > From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> > To: lojban@googlegroups.com
    > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:29 AM > Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses.
    A bug in the CLL? > > la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e > > I'm still finding this
    confusing, probably partly from Lojban > > terminology. mi'o is apparently
    the union of mi and do, written {mi > > jo'e do}?, > > Not a union, since
    {mi} and {do} aren't sets in the Lojban {lo'i}-sense. > So, not {jo'e}, but
    {jo'u}, which creates a "group" like a {lo}-sumti. > > {mi jo'u do} > > >
    without comment about how they interact with properties. To say, {ro > >
   mi'o}then says that they interact distributively and completely and > > thus
    amount to {ro mi e ro do}, as noted. Of course, other > > quantifiers would
    not break down so easily {su'o mi'o} is surely > > {su'o mi a su'o do} but
    nothing else works (well, {no ... e...}). > > Well, of course it's {su'o
   mi .a su'o do}. {su'o} corresponds to {.a}, > and {ro} to {.e}, that's why
    the two expressions have different expansions. > > However, a more general
    way to write either expression is: > > PA mi'o > = PA da poi ke'a me mi'o
    > = PA da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do > > Thus: > > ro mi'o > = ro da poi ke'a
    me mi jo'u do > "For all X such that X is among the group of me and you."
    > "Everything that is among the group of me and you." > > and > > su'o mi'o
    > = su'o da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do > "There exists some X such that X is
   among the group of me and you." > "At least one thing that is among the group
    of you and me." > > The basic [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (1.0 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
  1.0 FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD      'From' yahoo.com does not match 'Received' headers
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID             Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature

--Apple-Mail-A27E0107-4788-4846-8FEE-EB1C3E854840
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1


Sent from my iPad

On Jun 17, 2013, at 7:26, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well, it is Lojban terminology at work again: mi and do are sets, if anyt=
hing with a name (L-sets), so "union" seems appropriate, while "along with"=
 sounds like accompanying, not union.  {lo}expressions are also sets in the=
 same sense.  If {lo'i} means something else, it means C-sets, which are vi=
rtually useless for linguistic purposes and belong, if at all, to MEX. =20
> In passing, I note {me} being used for "is a member of", which is not wha=
t it means, although I suppose it does include that meaning as a remote par=
t.
>=20
>=20
> From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
> To: lojban@googlegroups.com=20
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?
>=20
> la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e
> > I'm still finding this confusing, probably partly from Lojban
> > terminology. mi'o is apparently the union of mi and do, written {mi
> > jo'e do}?,
>=20
> Not a union, since {mi} and {do} aren't sets in the Lojban {lo'i}-sense.
> So, not {jo'e}, but {jo'u}, which creates a "group" like a {lo}-sumti.
>=20
> {mi jo'u do}
>=20
> > without comment about how they interact with properties.  To say, {ro
> > mi'o}then says that they interact distributively and completely and
> > thus amount to {ro mi e ro do}, as noted.  Of course, other
> > quantifiers would not break down so easily {su'o mi'o} is surely
> > {su'o mi a su'o do} but nothing else works (well, {no ... e...}).
>=20
> Well, of course it's {su'o mi .a su'o do}. {su'o} corresponds to {.a},
> and {ro} to {.e}, that's why the two expressions have different expansion=
s.
>=20
> However, a more general way to write either expression is:
>=20
>     PA mi'o
> =3D    PA da poi ke'a me mi'o
> =3D    PA da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do
>=20
> Thus:
>=20
>     ro mi'o
> =3D    ro da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do
>     "For all X such that X is among the group of me and you."
>     "Everything that is among the group of me and you."
>=20
> and
>=20
>     su'o mi'o
> =3D    su'o da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do
>     "There exists some X such that X is among the group of me and you."
>     "At least one thing that is among the group of you and me."
>=20
> The basic point is that:
>=20
>     mi .e do me mi jo'u do
>=20
> > I don't get the point about {mio}, largely because I don't quite see
> > what it is supposed to be (it isn't given anywhere and doesn't appear
> > to be Lojban).
>=20
> "mio" is one of the loglan words for "we". It appeared earlier in this
> thread. I deliberately avoided the curly {}-quotes to set it apart from
> the Lojban words, else it really does look like a typo.
>=20
> Definition of "mio" (which does *not* correspond to {mi'o}):
> > mio (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others independently"
> > sense, the 1st 3rd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e
> > da'.
>=20
> mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
>=20
> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro=
ups "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.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=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=
 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.
> =20
> =20

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


--Apple-Mail-A27E0107-4788-4846-8FEE-EB1C3E854840
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

<html><head></head><body bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div><br><br>Sent from my iPad=
</div><div><br>On Jun 17, 2013, at 7:26, John E Clifford &lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:kali9putra@yahoo.com">kali9putra@yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><br></div>=
<div></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div style=3D"color:#000; backgro=
und-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-si=
ze:12pt">Well, it is Lojban terminology at work again: mi and do are sets, =
if anything with a name (L-sets), so "union" seems appropriate, while "alon=
g with" sounds like accompanying, not union.&nbsp; {lo}expressions are also=
 sets in the same sense.&nbsp; If {lo'i} means something else, it means C-s=
ets, which are virtually useless for linguistic purposes and belong, if at =
all, to MEX.&nbsp; <br>In passing, I note {me} being used for "is a member =
of", which is not what it means, although I suppose it does include that me=
aning as a remote part.<br><div><span><br></span></div><div><br></div>  <di=
v 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> selpa'i=
 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:seladwa@gmx.de">seladwa@gmx.de</a>&gt;<br> <b><span =
style=3D"font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@google=
groups.com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a> <br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight:=
 bold;">Sent:</span></b> Monday, June 17, 2013 2:29 AM<br> <b><span style=
=3D"font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A=
 bug in the CLL?<br> </font> </div> <div class=3D"y_msg_container"><br>
la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e<br>&gt; I'm still finding this confusing, probably=
 partly from Lojban<br>&gt; terminology. mi'o is apparently the union of mi=
 and do, written {mi<br>&gt; jo'e do}?,<br><br>Not a union, since {mi} and =
{do} aren't sets in the Lojban {lo'i}-sense.<br>So, not {jo'e}, but {jo'u},=
 which creates a "group" like a {lo}-sumti.<br><br>{mi jo'u do}<br><br>&gt;=
 without comment about how they interact with properties.&nbsp; To say, {ro=
<br>&gt; mi'o}then says that they interact distributively and completely an=
d<br>&gt; thus amount to {ro mi e ro do}, as noted.&nbsp; Of course, other<=
br>&gt; quantifiers would not break down so easily {su'o mi'o} is surely<br=
>&gt; {su'o mi a su'o do} but nothing else works (well, {no ... e...}).<br>=
<br>Well, of course it's {su'o mi .a su'o do}. {su'o} corresponds to {.a},<=
br>and {ro} to {.e}, that's why the two expressions have different expansio=
ns.<br><br>However, a more general way to write either expression
 is:<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PA mi'o<br>=3D&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PA da poi k=
e'a me mi'o<br>=3D&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PA da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do<br><br>Th=
us:<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ro mi'o<br>=3D&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ro da poi ke=
'a me mi jo'u do<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "For all X such that X is among the =
group of me and you."<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "Everything that is among the g=
roup of me and you."<br><br>and<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; su'o mi'o<br>=3D&=
nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; su'o da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "The=
re exists some X such that X is among the group of me and you."<br>&nbsp;&n=
bsp;&nbsp; "At least one thing that is among the group of you and me."<br><=
br>The basic point is that:<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; mi .e do me mi jo'u d=
o<br><br>&gt; I don't get the point about {mio}, largely because I don't qu=
ite see<br>&gt; what it is supposed to be (it isn't given anywhere and does=
n't appear<br>&gt; to be Lojban).<br><br>"mio" is one of the loglan words
 for "we". It appeared earlier in this<br>thread. I deliberately avoided th=
e curly {}-quotes to set it apart from<br>the Lojban words, else it really =
does look like a typo.<br><br>Definition of "mio" (which does *not* corresp=
ond to {mi'o}):<br>&gt; mio (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others in=
dependently"<br>&gt; sense, the 1st 3rd person multiple variable. Equivalen=
t to 'mi, e<br>&gt; da'.<br><br>mu'o mi'e la selpa'i<br><br>-- You received=
 this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" grou=
p.<br>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, sen=
d an email to lojban+<a ymailto=3D"mailto:unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" hre=
f=3D"mailto:unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.=
<br>To post to this group, send email to <a ymailto=3D"mailto:lojban@google=
groups.com" href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com">lojban@googlegroups.com=
</a>.<br>Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojb=
an">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br>For
 more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out" t=
arget=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br><br><br><=
br><br></div> </div> </div>  </div>

<p></p>

-- <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 <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</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>
</div></blockquote></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">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</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 />

--Apple-Mail-A27E0107-4788-4846-8FEE-EB1C3E854840--