Received: from mail-bk0-f57.google.com ([209.85.214.57]:33297) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WZOMP-0000qD-Lq for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:38:40 -0700 Received: by mail-bk0-f57.google.com with SMTP id r7sf530406bkg.12 for ; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:38:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=Ub0Lk50qhyCqZs07TcdmDJc8QZlhTIzGmAMvTrC6RRU=; b=VHJbXyH6Hrob0p9JcV9evvR8Fz2VTAWIoMKo/kPGcuqNG/eS6HvOy8qN62a29rATtd mt3RJ3GxRjvKp+LH4m4hCl8/DEdcNH7BMq9aU4SfeibvNSS5Eel0eiWeJF9w2iVvJMJV UeCVnr8XAxD9aLtg9MSteRSoYdoHkcFWcpjvB/vxRunRzy/IHdU8HqAzuHdaKabzhcnH 5xLud97bIMqVEe6W34MeWMpEw5ZCbREftQ51KwbJMCRPNsgczK3IeiwycJGo6+Eg27P1 rloZ8H5PR9JoggaYoe7G8TgD7Po9larJJQHkv7YJoFCGm5z7c3ZUIS+fvZ3g2cLg84Wb iJJw== X-Received: by 10.152.243.33 with SMTP id wv1mr50864lac.5.1397410701982; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:38:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.153.11.161 with SMTP id ej1ls337056lad.102.gmail; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:38:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.115.171 with SMTP id jp11mr228732lab.3.1397410701460; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com (mail-wi0-x231.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fp6si432181wib.2.2014.04.13.10.38.21 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::231; Received: by mail-wi0-x231.google.com with SMTP id cc10so3073095wib.10 for ; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:38:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.83.196 with SMTP id s4mr6533128wiy.24.1397410701315; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([37.252.202.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cw2sm21200346wjb.39.2014.04.13.10.38.16 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <534ACB83.1040800@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 19:38:11 +0200 From: Ilmen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Tag compounds' semantics References: <534A975C.6070304@gmail.com> <2198754.cf9Q7LNGSG@caracal> <534AC00A.6040801@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::231 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030808040503000503070304" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030808040503000503070304 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 13/04/2014 19:09, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > That's somewhat contradictory, which can ve seen more clearly with=20 > "va" or "vu": > "near to ... ; there at ...; a medium/small distance from ..." > "far from ... ; yonder at ... ; a longdistance from ..." > "Here/there/yonder at ..." is obviously not the same as "a short/medium/l= ong distance from ..." > In any case CLL dropped the"here/there/yonder at ..." version,and the BPF= K has the magnitude version: > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Distance > > As I understand it, {vi} is a tag based on {sepli}; its argument > is a sepli2, and not a sepli3. > Otherwise, {vi lo cmalu} would be somewhat redundant, don't you > think so? :) > > > "vi lo cmalu" is somewhat redundant, but "vi lo centre be li ci" is=20 > not. :) .oi ro'e se'i I didn't know of this BPFK page. Thank you for the link! Well, thus pu's argument and that of zi aren't of the same type, and {pu=20 zi}'s tags probably can't share the same argument. I have my answer, thank you. :) Now the distinctions vi/va/vu and zi/za/zu seem pointless, as you can=20 always say {va lo centre be li ci so'u} or {va lo centre be li ci ku noi=20 cmalu}. mi'e la .ilmen. 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 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/d/optout. --------------030808040503000503070304 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 13/04/2014 19:09, Jorge Llambí= as wrote:
That's somewhat contradictory, which can ve seen more clearly with "va" or "vu":
"near to ... ; there at ...; =
a medium/small distance from ..."
 "fa=
r from ... ; yonder at ... ; a long distance from ..."
"Here/there/yonder at ..." is obviously not the same as "a short/mediu=
m/long distance from ..."
In any c=
ase CLL dropped the "here/there/yo=
nder at ..." version, and the BPFK=
 has the magnitude version: 
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Distanc=
e

As I understand it= , {vi} is a tag based on {sepli}; its argument is a sepli2, and not a sepli3.
Otherwise, {vi lo cmalu} would be somewhat redundant, don't you think so? :)

"vi lo cmalu" is somewhat redundant, but "vi lo centre be li ci" is not. :)

.oi ro'e se'i

I didn't know of this BPFK page. Thank you for the link!

Well, thus pu's argument and that of zi aren't of the same type, and {pu zi}'s tags probably can't share the same argument.

I have my answer, thank you. :)

Now the distinctions vi/va/vu and zi/za/zu seem pointless, as you can always say {va lo centre be li ci so'u} or {va lo centre be li ci ku noi cmalu}.

mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--------------030808040503000503070304--