Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.136.216.211 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.136.216.211;
Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?
References: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com> <CALMa68r4BqLh=eFcGPV1mA-fDkYpg3xR6d-Nu4RD8qVrueM4Gw@mail.gmail.com> <1371405876.998.YahooMailNeo@web184401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5a62e3e4-6bad-47c1-b6ad-86639420b7aa@googlegroups.com> <CAOQ8VDVPXUDj7ffnMw=M1BEM5x_5MYOON0w4BrbDcnn4RmkOUA@mail.gmail.com> <c915e810-abae-4fe5-a0ac-1c2cba4394df@googlegroups.com>
From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <c915e810-abae-4fe5-a0ac-1c2cba4394df@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <34087CDB-5C29-47F5-9257-D02B91A2502F@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:09:08 -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-5DC9C5A4-A108-4ACA-9BB8-692E20814FEE
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:  Well, yes, anaphora is one of those places where Lojban falls
    short, so an ideal loglang would handle it differently. But that doesn't
   seem to be directly relevant here, *{da'au} isn't being used anaphorically
    here, nor in the various versions of "we" ,which does not always include
   the notion, or indeed the second person either -- salience again. We are the
    salient group who is speaking through the utterance of one of us. [...] 
 
 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-5DC9C5A4-A108-4ACA-9BB8-692E20814FEE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Well, yes, anaphora is one of those places where Lojban falls short, so an =
ideal loglang would handle it differently.  But that doesn't seem to be dir=
ectly relevant here, *{da'au} isn't being used anaphorically here, nor in t=
he various versions of "we" ,which does not always include the notion, or i=
ndeed the second person either -- salience again.  We are the salient group=
 who is speaking through the utterance of one of us.

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:54, la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

>=20
>=20
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:31:36 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
> On 18 June 2013 06:15, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> On Sunday, June 16, 2013 10:04:36 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote:
> After slogging through this long and repetitive thread, I find I have los=
t what the point was.  To help guiding my understanding, I summarize the pr=
esent situation as I understand it.
> In a given speech situation there is are a bunch (maybe only one) of peop=
le speaking or being represented by the speaker ({mi}), another bunch (not =
necessarily separate) who directly or vicariously hear the speech ({do}), a=
nd a third group not directly involved in the speech act ({ko'a} and just a=
bout everything else). =20
> In the event being spoken about any or all of these groups (or parts of t=
hem) may be involved and they may be referred to by the designations derive=
d from their speech-act roles: {mi + do}, {mi + ko'a}, {do + ko'a} and {mi =
+ do + ko'a},  in various abbreviated forms.
> On a standard Lojban assumption (at least since xorlo achieved its final =
form), the simplest such forms refer to the united bunches.  The question o=
f how those bunches satisfy the predicates involved is left to context or a=
 demand for clarification.
> Toward clarification, then, we have a different forms for when the bunch =
satisfies the predicate distributively (individually, more or less) and whe=
n it satisfies it collectively (as a mass, ditto). =20
> As a side note, the English (and perhaps many other languages') "we", doe=
s not correspond directly to any of these things, since it is distinctly pl=
ural (unlike {mi}) and may include or exclude any number of others.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> 1. first person. {mi=3Dle cusku be dei}=20
> 2. second person {do=3Dle te cusku be dei}
> 3. non-person, someone not in the dialog {da'au =3D da poi prenu gi'e na'=
e cusku be dei gi'e na'e te cusku be dei} (ad hoc experimental cmavo)
>=20
> Also we need=20
> {da'ai =3D da poi prenu gi'e na'e cusku be dei}
>=20
>=20
> I don't think experimental cmavo are at all necessary for this purpose.
> =20
> So=20
> I =3D mi
> you exclusively =3D do
> you and others =3D do'o =3D do jo'u da'au
> we =3D mi jo'u da'ai
> we exclusively  =3D mi jo'u da'au =3D mi'a
> you and I =3D mi jo'u do =3D mi'o
> we inclusively =3D mi jo'u do jo'u da'au =3D ma'a
>=20
> you and others =3D do'o =3D do jo'u lo drata be mi .e do
>=20
> {lo drata be mi}  doesn't state the thing is a person. Althouth yes, for =
most cases it's precise enough.
>=20
> others and I (could include the listener) =3D mi jo'u lo drata be mi (or =
if you like lujvo, {lo mibdrata})
> exclusive we =3D mi'a =3D mi jo'u lo drata be mi .e do
> you and I =3D mi'o =3D mi jo'u do
> inclusive we =3D ma'a =3D mi jo'u do jo'u lo drata be mi .e do
>=20
> The only time we don't have a KOhA dedicated for the expansion is case #2=
, but in my opinion, such a cmavo is unnecessary.=20
>=20
>=20
> Well, my point was to expand this topic to anaphora.
> {da'au} is "he/she/'ey" in English. And English "we" includes this {da'au=
}. Probably John has other ideas of what anaphora might look like in a hypo=
thetical loglang but that's probably a story for anther thread.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> .i mi'e la tsani mu'o
> --=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-5DC9C5A4-A108-4ACA-9BB8-692E20814FEE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

<html><head></head><body bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div>Well, yes, anaphora is on=
e of those places where Lojban falls short, so an ideal loglang would handl=
e it differently. &nbsp;But that doesn't seem to be directly relevant here,=
 *{da'au} isn't being used anaphorically here, nor in the various versions =
of "we" ,which does not always include the notion, or indeed the second per=
son either -- salience again. &nbsp;We are the salient group who is speakin=
g through the utterance of one of us.</div><div><br>Sent from my iPad</div>=
<div><br>On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:54, la arxokuna &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gleki=
.is.my.name@gmail.com">gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><br></d=
iv><div></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><br><br>On Tuesday, June 18, 2=
013 7:31:36 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: =
1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr">On 18 June 2013 06:15, la arxokuna <span dir=3D"ltr"=
>&lt;<a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"nOE=
T4ptmTVMJ">gleki.is...@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote">

<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br><br>On Sunday, June 16, 2013 10:04:=
36 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div><div style=3D"font-size:12pt;font-family:times new roman,new york,time=
s,serif">After slogging through this long and repetitive thread, I find I h=
ave lost what the point was.&nbsp; To help guiding my understanding, I summ=
arize the present situation as I understand it.<br>

In a given speech situation there is are a bunch (maybe only one) of people=
 speaking or being represented by the speaker ({mi}), another bunch (not ne=
cessarily separate) who directly or vicariously hear the speech ({do}), and=
 a third group not directly involved in the speech act ({ko'a} and just abo=
ut everything else).&nbsp; <br>

In the event being spoken about any or all of these groups (or parts of the=
m) may be involved and they may be referred to by the designations derived =
from their speech-act roles: {mi + do}, {mi + ko'a}, {do + ko'a} and {mi + =
do + ko'a},&nbsp; in various abbreviated forms.<br>

On a standard Lojban assumption (at least
 since xorlo achieved its final form), the simplest such forms refer to the=
 united bunches.&nbsp; The question of how those bunches satisfy the predic=
ates involved is left to context or a demand for clarification.<br>Toward c=
larification, then, we have a different forms for when the bunch satisfies =
the predicate distributively (individually, more or less) and when it satis=
fies it collectively (as a mass, ditto).&nbsp; <br>

As a side note, the English (and perhaps many other languages') "we", does =
not correspond directly to any of these things, since it is distinctly plur=
al (unlike {mi}) and may include or exclude any number of others.</div>

</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div>=
1. first person. {mi=3Dle cusku be dei}&nbsp;</div><div>2. second person {d=
o=3Dle te cusku be dei}</div><div>3. non-person, someone not in the dialog =
{da'au =3D da poi prenu gi'e na'e cusku be dei gi'e na'e te cusku be dei} (=
ad hoc experimental cmavo)</div>

<div><br></div><div>Also we need&nbsp;</div><div>{da'ai =3D da poi prenu gi=
'e na'e cusku be dei}</div><div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>=
I don't think experimental cmavo are at all necessary for this purpose.</di=
v>

<div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div></div><div>So&nbsp;</d=
iv><div>I =3D mi</div><div>you exclusively =3D do</div><div>you and others =
=3D do'o =3D do jo'u da'au</div>

<div>we =3D mi jo'u da'ai</div><div>we exclusively &nbsp;=3D mi jo'u da'au =
=3D mi'a</div><div>you and I =3D mi jo'u do =3D mi'o</div><div>we inclusive=
ly =3D mi jo'u do jo'u da'au =3D ma'a</div></blockquote>

<div><br></div><div>you and others =3D do'o =3D do jo'u lo drata be mi .e d=
o</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>{lo drata be mi} =
&nbsp;doesn't state the thing is a person. Althouth yes, for most cases it'=
s precise enough.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left=
: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>others and I =
(could include the listener) =3D mi jo'u lo drata be mi (or if you like luj=
vo, {lo mibdrata})</div><div>

exclusive we =3D mi'a =3D mi jo'u lo drata be mi .e do</div><div>you and I =
=3D mi'o =3D mi jo'u do</div><div>inclusive we =3D ma'a =3D mi jo'u do jo'u=
 lo drata be mi .e do</div><div><br>
</div>
<div>The only time we don't have a KOhA dedicated for the expansion is case=
 #2, but in my opinion, such a cmavo is unnecessary.&nbsp;</div></div></div=
></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Well, my point was t=
o expand this topic to anaphora.</div><div>{da'au} is "he/she/'ey" in Engli=
sh. And English "we" includes this {da'au}. Probably John has other ideas o=
f what anaphora might look like in a hypothetical loglang but that's probab=
ly a story for anther thread.</div><div><br></div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockqu=
ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left=
: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div class=3D"gm=
ail_quote"><div><br></div><div>.i mi'e la tsani mu'o</div></div></div>

</div>
</blockquote>

<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-5DC9C5A4-A108-4ACA-9BB8-692E20814FEE--