Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 85.13.138.119 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of me@v4hn.de) client-ip=85.13.138.119;
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 16:07:42 +0200
From: v4hn <me@v4hn.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Please, the best explanation of {le} vs. {lo}
Message-ID: <20130623140742.GK32044@samsa.fritz.box>
References: <CALm==BWNQg8g6+nGS2Tr1o5LhYB=3PYFihar-jeb5gQhP4Hd=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5d7f238f-ff93-40ab-af24-fc6320d91b23@googlegroups.com>
 <CAMKwHj1rHGmv_ZA6q5N5_sLgOS+pTLDFEdXxhDHt3yZ8tJJu3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <c881bb54-556a-4507-8a69-5d9836d4590c@googlegroups.com>
 <CAMKwHj1yae-EHEi7txVG61nGtHwD_vP9br4R2RQ64+ZBOMtZ1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <199f9de9-f0bb-4cbb-bd8e-e124b45d5d1d@googlegroups.com>
 <CAMKwHj0YPQvyZKPT83NMYG_mmpNNy=j0HVdjeQm6P22jwrzNug@mail.gmail.com>
 <d8fa0d25-ba5a-4d6f-aad9-6f5733c05c7e@googlegroups.com>
 <20130623121840.GI32044@samsa.fritz.box>
 <2d346b25-b744-4f11-9fcb-65211de46c48@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9a9Vq1BJdYBEXpLG"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2d346b25-b744-4f11-9fcb-65211de46c48@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /


--9a9Vq1BJdYBEXpLG
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

We're going round and round and round...

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 05:41:58AM -0700, =D0=90=D0=BD=D0=B0=D1=82=D0=BE=D0=
=BB=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=93=D0=B0=D1=88=D0=B5=D0=B2 wrote:
> Using here {le nanmu} is not better and actually it might be wrong.

There is no way something like that is _wrong_. It makes more assumptions
about the existence of an entity you call {le nanmu} (more than {lo}),
but it makes _less_ assumptions about properties of that entity.

That is to say, if that entity you refer to exists, and you are actually
trying to refer to it, then there is no way the {le} version is wrong
and {lo} is not.

> Cuz it may be that I just now saw a woman, which I described as a man
> and I think the person is a man.
> He/she has not any specific meaning for me at all that is why I called=20
> him/her {lo nanmu}, but not {le ninmu}.

Oh, she definitely does. Because _you just saw her_.
That's something _very_ specific. Something much more specific than
your opinion that she is a man. (Otherwise there would not even be an real-=
life
entity around you could refer to).

> Please, everybody, read xorlo-update already cuz the {lo}-meaning has=20
> changed dramatically since CLL, which is dated by 1997.

I never really learnt pre-xorlo lojban and I'm not at all trying to
defend it. Please try to read my mails keeping that in mind, because
it is really hard - with or without lojban - to explain a point of view=20
in a moderate-sized mail in a way no one will read it as the complete oppos=
ite.


v4hn

--9a9Vq1BJdYBEXpLG
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlHHAS4ACgkQMBKLZs4+wjxb7QCfSfj6FYm9a0RuEybo1O3Y4luR
InMAmwSfI99au8AHOfWrk2xNBguBr9JX
=QYGc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--9a9Vq1BJdYBEXpLG--