Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 216.109.115.62 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.109.115.62;
Subject: Re: [lojban] Please, the best explanation of {le} vs. {lo}
References: <e7d449eb-3494-4ffa-a469-3145135f6f96@googlegroups.com> <51C5B15F.8070903@gmx.de> <1371920751.98036.YahooMailNeo@web184404.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <18545397.qYQ50d5c6S@caracal> <9C825D21-FED6-4D58-BA79-D8CFE1BAAA8A@yahoo.com> <CAKOEKkSXEshSiQQK9Qnw_5G=H73bXSo6VChOQq52GwS3DW_7RA@mail.gmail.com> <51C6CA36.5030604@gmx.de>
From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <51C6CA36.5030604@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <1F12C110-EA49-4882-81CF-C22E0F2698D5@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 09:22:30 -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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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:  Lord, does anybody still use {lo'e} except for the rare C-set?
    Sent from my iPad On Jun 23, 2013, at 5:13, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
    [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (1.0 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  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 URIBL_BLOCKED          ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
                             See
                             http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
                              for more information.
                             [URIs: gmx.de]
  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

Lord, does anybody still use {lo'e} except for the rare C-set?

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 23, 2013, at 5:13, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

> la gejyspa cu cusku di'e
>> I was never real fond of "tai broda" for "so [X]"  I understand it when
>> people use it that way, but I don't use it.  "mutce" seems to be much
>> more salient.  I think la'u works, though, too.  (What about ci'u?)  Or
>> perhaps "so" is really more of a noise word in these cases, so "iu" (or
>> whatever) is more appropriate?
> 
> Maybe "this/that" is easier to understand than "so"? I take "so" as making an implicit comparison, usually to something unspecific, but big/extreme. {tai} certainly does compare, so maybe it will make more obvious sense when translated as "this":
> 
>    lo gerku cu tai ci'omle
>    "Dogs are thi[iiiiiiii]s cute."
> 
> You can stretch out your arms to show just how cute dogs are measured in terms of the distance between your hands. :)
> 
>>   As for "dogs are so cute", I would prefer "loi" in that  construction
>> (or possibly even lo'e or le'e).  Man, doesn't anyone use anything but
>> "lo" anymore??
> 
> How does marking non-distributivity help you to make a more general claim? Some group of dogs is cute together?
> 
> {lo'e} certainly works (though not everyone agrees on what it means), but I don't see how {loi} is any better than {lo}. In fact, I think it's worse.
> 
> mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
> 
> -- 
> 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.
> 
> 

-- 
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.