Received-SPF: none (google.com: me@v4hn.de does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=85.13.134.113;
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 18:53:32 +0200
From: v4hn <me@v4hn.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] CLL Corrections
Message-ID: <20140807165332.GL28465@samsa.fritz.box>
References: <1a05ebdb-5a99-4382-b6a3-4205d1d16ae6@googlegroups.com>
 <CAO7tK2d=qyqZtckEezU8zdxYVB07661+-gGSLo1YYKDH-MXJ0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <857775fe-c38f-4e84-b3b9-17034a98a989@googlegroups.com>
 <CAKOEKkQjsdhkaQHz2hFhOup9PWhLXMVAYoNS04m=w7w-kBSPew@mail.gmail.com>
 <bdc5c32c-98df-45c9-8c16-210d4c09a9c0@googlegroups.com>
 <036a8ae9-4a0b-455c-b014-0b1a97e37d62@googlegroups.com>
 <20140807124944.GI28465@samsa.fritz.box>
 <1fa41501-809e-4157-aee4-777215596290@googlegroups.com>
 <20140807134047.GK28465@samsa.fritz.box>
 <e86517cd-fb2f-4030-ace9-e16b99b457bc@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Swj79WlilW4BQYVz"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e86517cd-fb2f-4030-ace9-e16b99b457bc@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
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: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -


--Swj79WlilW4BQYVz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 09:07:18AM -0700, TR NS wrote:
> That's my point about the ambiguity. Either it fills x1 or or it fills th=
e=20
> next available sumiti. There needs to be no "presumption" or "if it is=20
> clear to the listener". I may have interpreted that sentence differently=
=20
> than you too. To me it read that one could presume it was in *any* slot=
=20
> other x1 if it made contextual sense to the listener. e.g. if x3 was "cle=
ar=20
> to the listener" they'd could choose that one too. As opposed to the=20
> interpretation that it meant the "next available slot". Eliminating that=
=20
> ambiguity was my point of bringing this up.=20

Well, the CLL only states it has to be unambiguous in context.
I gave you a syntactically unambiguous version of that interpretation
which describes current usage pretty good.

> Personally I think it makes more sense for it just to always be x1 b/c it=
=20
> is easy enough to add `se` or `te` as needed, and I think if fits the=20
> intent of NOI better.

I consider that malglico. It makes much less sense to assume the relative p=
ronoun
overwrites a place already taken by a sumti than having it fill a vacant sl=
ot.

> Consider I want to say "Tom who was a traveler to Baltimore."

la .tom. noi litru la .boltimor.


mu'o

--Swj79WlilW4BQYVz
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT468LAAoJEKCfEUk/PuMmjSQP/1hQvAEDdCevOEqlhpr/rljO
pMzxVAfbYiyayHph7oxQlIEsnRAnSCTAqCDw0pmPB93izcqdqd1Ql3zwinvh2Pp1
fGcahv5dZkLN9EN6Jdg6lYWVcjzM/5JsITtwsjQgCD8HGh8Yt98++O7O11ES4iz2
M2foXChUHBs/1LAO61vErzxgolooEKs24II1g2ClHlEBCnakrayVYu0uNqP6redv
MUI+e4rXyM/wTAaUtNVu9OsSUUMzM2oaB9sQqn8AVp+3o6G14lKgvMwlUCT/hmjr
/ujqnJKhm71YWMPHX+WExxtjBFTkNZfjH/LXwGZUxnkVlDodBF67Vew6yNqwLAx5
nPnYPERqKWtKZivO9SsdSfRP5MrHzuKHy7/YgrXvmiLHvMZV3xty6wtI04iiW/Ma
tjPRZ3wqV87xM7uX1BnLp2KGFtjinSDcJ8hPd4jvETafqMwz3UY3HYsmBRD1Loze
pwVsrsKMPBz8aJVeAC6MSkbceJPjemcFfYZS8IC+4XMU53hP0htv0hIub0BfdyqE
PYnTKzshjFGIVzVEXKIWb/UC6fklNsEg2YknwMrgEcRxXzBCYkPVx8MEdjw6Ha3G
4GGqKvFHocEBClQlYFmp6uQ7dJphAY6kGnV0h6hfRquTBi6Q+WDP7IvlP5pMp6EL
uV0rfp5u9tjS6u/z4Z8w
=0ztv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Swj79WlilW4BQYVz--