Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 67.195.87.95 as permitted sender) client-ip=67.195.87.95;
Subject: Fwd: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?
References: <EC837DF5-AA03-4129-BC3F-3522CE459A4C@yahoo.com>
From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
Message-Id: <829CBD73-3517-4739-93E1-78C932BAEAF4@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:10:33 -0500
To: 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-A862A196-AFAF-485E-A9D5-2AE9564BA1E7
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 Begin forwarded message: > From: "John E.
    Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com> > Date: June 18, 2013 8:29:35 CDT > To:
   la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and
   masses. A bug in the CLL? > > I guess my problem (aside from questions about
    the status of these critters) is the point of all thes details and added
   vocabulary. How often does it matter? On the rare occasion when it does, can
    we say it in a Zipfeanly appropriate form? Need the fact that some language,
    even our own, does it a certain way influence what happens in Lojban? > Oh,
    and what does all of this have to do with masses, i.e., sets acting collectively?
    > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 18, 2013, at 5:15, la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
    wrote: > >> >> >> 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
   lost what the point was. To help guiding my understanding, I summarize the
    present situation as I understand it. >> 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 necessarily separate) who directly
    or vicariously hear the speech ({do}), and a third group not directly involved
    in the speech act ({ko'a} and just about everything else). >> In the event
    being spoken about any or all of these groups (or parts of them) 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}, 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 of 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 when it satisfies it collectively (as a
   mass, ditto). >> As a side [...] 
 
 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-A862A196-AFAF-485E-A9D5-2AE9564BA1E7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1


Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
> Date: June 18, 2013 8:29:35 CDT
> To: la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?
>=20
> I guess my problem (aside from questions about the status of these critte=
rs) is the point of all thes details and added vocabulary.  How often does =
it matter?  On the rare occasion when it does, can we say it in a Zipfeanly=
 appropriate form?  Need the fact that some language, even our own, does it=
 a certain way influence what happens in Lojban?
> Oh, and what does all of this have to do with masses, i.e., sets acting c=
ollectively?
>=20
> Sent from my iPad
>=20
> On Jun 18, 2013, at 5:15, la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>>=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 lo=
st what the point was.  To help guiding my understanding, I summarize the p=
resent situation as I understand it.
>> In a given speech situation there is are a bunch (maybe only one) of peo=
ple speaking or being represented by the speaker ({mi}), another bunch (not=
 necessarily separate) who directly or vicariously hear the speech ({do}), =
and a third group not directly involved in the speech act ({ko'a} and just =
about everything else). =20
>> In the event being spoken about any or all of these groups (or parts of =
them) may be involved and they may be referred to by the designations deriv=
ed 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 =
of 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 wh=
en it satisfies it collectively (as a mass, ditto). =20
>> As a side note, the English (and perhaps many other languages') "we", do=
es not correspond directly to any of these things, since it is distinctly p=
lural (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
>> 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 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-A862A196-AFAF-485E-A9D5-2AE9564BA1E7
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>Begin forwarded message:<br><br></div><blockquote type=3D"ci=
te"><div><b>From:</b> "John E. Clifford" &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:kali9putra@y=
ahoo.com">kali9putra@yahoo.com</a>&gt;<br><b>Date:</b> June 18, 2013 8:29:3=
5 CDT<br><b>To:</b> la arxokuna &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gleki.is.my.name@gmai=
l.com">gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com</a>&gt;<br><b>Subject:</b> <b>Re: [lojban=
] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?</b><br><br></div></blockquote><div></d=
iv><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div>I guess my problem (aside from quest=
ions about the status of these critters) is the point of all thes details a=
nd added vocabulary. &nbsp;How often does it matter? &nbsp;On the rare occa=
sion when it does, can we say it in a Zipfeanly appropriate form? &nbsp;Nee=
d the fact that some language, even our own, does it a certain way influenc=
e what happens in Lojban?</div><div>Oh, and what does all of this have to d=
o with masses, i.e., sets acting collectively?</div><div><br>Sent from my i=
Pad</div><div><br>On Jun 18, 2013, at 5:15, la arxokuna &lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com">gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br=
><br></div><div></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><br><br>On Sunday, Jun=
e 16, 2013 10:04:36 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;paddi=
ng-left: 1ex;"><div><div style=3D"color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-fam=
ily:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">After slogging thr=
ough this long and repetitive thread, I find I have lost what the point was=
.&nbsp; To help guiding my understanding, I summarize the present situation=
 as I understand it.<br>In a given speech situation there is are a bunch (m=
aybe only one) of people speaking or being represented by the speaker ({mi}=
), another bunch (not necessarily separate) who directly or vicariously hea=
r the speech ({do}), and a third group not directly involved in the speech =
act ({ko'a} and just about everything else).&nbsp; <br>In the event being s=
poken about any or all of these groups (or parts of them) may be involved a=
nd they may be referred to by the designations derived from their speech-ac=
t 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 Engl=
ish (and perhaps many other languages') "we", does not correspond directly =
to any of these things, since it is distinctly plural (unlike {mi}) and may=
 include or exclude any number of others.</div></div></blockquote><div><br>=
</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>1. first person. {mi=3Dle cusku be=
 dei}&nbsp;</div><div>2. second person {do=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><d=
iv><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><div>So&nbsp;</div><div>I =3D mi</d=
iv><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 m=
i jo'u da'au =3D mi'a</div><div>you and I =3D mi jo'u do =3D mi'o</div><div=
>we inclusively =3D mi jo'u do jo'u da'au =3D ma'a</div></div></blockquote>=
</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-A862A196-AFAF-485E-A9D5-2AE9564BA1E7--