Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.121.66 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.121.66;
Subject: Re: [lojban] Please, the best explanation of {le} vs. {lo}
References: <e7d449eb-3494-4ffa-a469-3145135f6f96@googlegroups.com> <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>
From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <2d346b25-b744-4f11-9fcb-65211de46c48@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <84DAB51C-5A16-4C65-A8E7-B59C289F7058@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 09:34:02 -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-0DE920D0-3BDC-418D-AF7A-62AFE1AC2868
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:  The CLL meaning of {lo} doesn't seem to be involved here,
   except that then, as now, {lo broda} applied only to actual brodas. (The non-veridical
    nature of {le}, while essential for solving the problem it was devised for,
    has generated a continuing problem ever since. Remember, you'd better have
    a really good reason for using {le broda} for something that isn't a broda.)
    [...] 
 
 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-0DE920D0-3BDC-418D-AF7A-62AFE1AC2868
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R

The CLL meaning of {lo} doesn't seem to be involved here, except that then,=
 as now, {lo broda} applied only to actual brodas.  (The non-veridical natu=
re of {le}, while essential for solving the problem it was devised for, has=
 generated a continuing problem ever since.  Remember, you'd better have a =
really good reason for using {le broda} for something that isn't a broda.)

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 23, 2013, at 7:41, =E1=CE=C1=D4=CF=CC=C9=CA =E7=C1=DB=C5=D7 <volisha=
vas@gmail.com> wrote:

> Using here {le nanmu} is not better and actually it might be wrong. Cuz i=
t may be that I just now saw a woman, which I described as a man and I thin=
k the person is a man.
> He/she has not any specific meaning for me at all that is why I called hi=
m/her {lo nanmu}, but not {le ninmu}.
> Please, everybody, read xorlo-update already cuz the {lo}-meaning has cha=
nged dramatically since CLL, which is dated by 1997.
>=20
> =D7=CF=D3=CB=D2=C5=D3=C5=CE=D8=C5, 23 =C9=C0=CE=D1 2013 =C7., 18:18:40 UT=
C+6 =D0=CF=CC=D8=DA=CF=D7=C1=D4=C5=CC=D8 v4hn =CE=C1=D0=C9=D3=C1=CC:
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 03:21:50AM -0700, =E1=CE=C1=D4=CF=CC=C9=CA =E7=C1=
=DB=C5=D7 wrote:=20
> > I may call a woman with {lo nanmu} if I think the person is a man.=20
> > You can ask about that almost anybody, especially la tsani or la selpa'=
i.=20
> > And they can say am I right or not.=20
>=20
> Yes, you can do that. Obviously. How else would you describe someone=20
> who seems to be a man?=20
>=20
> Nevertheless, you say something ba'e wrong then.=20
> Using {le nanmu} (which in my opinion is better style anyway when you=20
> have someone specific in mind) you do not, because you refer to=20
> a specific individual no matter the description.=20
>=20
>=20
> v4hn=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-0DE920D0-3BDC-418D-AF7A-62AFE1AC2868
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset=KOI8-R

<html><head></head><body bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div>The CLL meaning of {lo} d=
oesn't seem to be involved here, except that then, as now, {lo broda} appli=
ed only to actual brodas. &nbsp;(The non-veridical nature of {le}, while es=
sential for solving the problem it was devised for, has generated a continu=
ing problem ever since. &nbsp;Remember, you'd better have a really good rea=
son for using {le broda} for something that isn't a broda.)<br><br>Sent fro=
m my iPad</div><div><br>On Jun 23, 2013, at 7:41, =E1=CE=C1=D4=CF=CC=C9=CA =
=E7=C1=DB=C5=D7 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:volishavas@gmail.com">volishavas@gmai=
l.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div=
>Using here {le nanmu} is not better and actually it might be wrong. 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.<br>He/she has not any specific meaning for me at all =
that is why I called him/her {lo nanmu}, but not {le ninmu}.<br>Please, eve=
rybody, read xorlo-update already cuz the {lo}-meaning has changed dramatic=
ally since CLL, which is dated by 1997.<br><br>=D7=CF=D3=CB=D2=C5=D3=C5=CE=
=D8=C5, 23 =C9=C0=CE=D1 2013&nbsp;=C7., 18:18:40 UTC+6 =D0=CF=CC=D8=DA=CF=
=D7=C1=D4=C5=CC=D8 v4hn =CE=C1=D0=C9=D3=C1=CC:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left: 1ex;">On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 03:21:50AM -0700, =E1=CE=C1=D4=CF=
=CC=C9=CA =E7=C1=DB=C5=D7 wrote:
<br>&gt; I may call a woman with {lo nanmu} if I think the person is a man.
<br>&gt; You can ask about that almost anybody, especially la tsani or la s=
elpa'i.=20
<br>&gt; And they can say am I right or not.
<br>
<br>Yes, you can do that. Obviously. How else would you describe someone
<br>who seems to be a man?
<br>
<br>Nevertheless, you say something ba'e wrong then.
<br>Using {le nanmu} (which in my opinion is better style anyway when you
<br>have someone specific in mind) you do not, because you refer to
<br>a specific individual no matter the description.
<br>
<br>
<br>v4hn
<br></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-0DE920D0-3BDC-418D-AF7A-62AFE1AC2868--