Received: from mail-oi0-f64.google.com ([209.85.218.64]:56966) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XYXR2-0001Ua-29 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 02:40:08 -0700 Received: by mail-oi0-f64.google.com with SMTP id e131sf91028oig.29 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 02:39:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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=Dhkdkc0FHY8mKInRlU/VQ+/gOK4VnHmfQ2KktPEkhro=; b=rAiTrdkGZKffm0yTaGLinXAmkYrP3UHiMtwtHUwKDoltmmD0vnKLAILEpzIKxX7omR nGmVvv05mXWAIvctKhSrJcmzrytv+jxAJz55eVgYpN1ex3ygXWeSVTC8Nn3jMf8fRx4t R1CtOlh6s3zwwQ7N5MH0yRQPZFgfmremz0YcvHgg3T2zYPgnTdMbGNi/v2+0ZjX2QBA9 Ve0MHPwn6dceuMzUYJ8KPMI4jCkmbeT1nCEzmZPTr7ghQAOLQkHdcTZkvkuWqMatKGzJ CZGstfDqz0GpUZoJJDqhmJuA2UZ1KHbdzKnBOjlE2XrIC63y9hvBgnLT496i7S5O3Jh3 RzDw== X-Received: by 10.50.41.103 with SMTP id e7mr993346igl.8.1411983593502; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 02:39:53 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.79.168 with SMTP id k8ls2077424igx.6.canary; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 02:39:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.42.213.201 with SMTP id gx9mr34665828icb.13.1411983593146; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 02:39:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x231.google.com (mail-pd0-x231.google.com [2607:f8b0:400e:c02::231]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pz1si844508pbb.0.2014.09.29.02.39.53 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Sep 2014 02:39:53 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400e:c02::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400e:c02::231; Received: by mail-pd0-f177.google.com with SMTP id v10so15132140pde.36 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 02:39:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.197.138 with SMTP id iu10mr8044030pbc.70.1411983592999; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 02:39:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.37.198 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 02:39:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.37.198 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 02:39:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <957408e7-c827-4460-bf97-4a85642f29c7@googlegroups.com> <47666b9a-5ea7-4f43-b5c4-b72399ba47bb@googlegroups.com> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:39:52 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: New soi's scope From: And Rosta To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400e:c02::231 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@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: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1bff87d530e0504310ce7 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --e89a8ff1bff87d530e0504310ce7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 29 Sep 2014 09:59, "TR NS" wrote: > > On Monday, September 29, 2014 4:24:47 AM UTC-4, And Rosta wrote: >> >> >> On 29 Sep 2014 04:45, "TR NS" wrote: >> > >> > On Sunday, September 28, 2014 11:17:43 PM UTC-4, la durka wrote: >> >> la selpa'i has some discussion in the second half of this post. >> > >> > >> > Thank you, so much. THAT is an explanation. I finally understand {voi}. >> > >> > So, where as {poi} is an "identifier", narrowing down the possible identity of the referent, {voi} is a "qualifier". It doesn't restrict the identity, but selects the quality of the referent that makes it pertinent. Another translations besides simply "as" might be "in so far as". >> >> That is a different proposal than the one for using /voi/ for {poi'i}, which is the one you hadn't understood. > > > Wait, that's a different "new voi" proposal? And both proposed by la selpa'i? That's my impression. But the "as"-like voi is mooted just in a blog post, not in any list of formal proposals. >> >> It struck me as quite reasonable and understandable that you, newish to these topics, didn't understand that proposal, but not that you blamed the proposer for that. > > Am I reading that right? Instead of explaining, you are taking the time to rub my face in it? No, just to point out that the ethos and etiquette of the internet is that one takes it upon oneself to educate oneself as far as one can, and seeing that, others will be willing to give one a leg up to the areas one's independent understanding cannot reach. One cannot reasonably expect others to have prepackaged everything for one in easily digestible form. --And. -- 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/d/optout. --e89a8ff1bff87d530e0504310ce7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 29 Sep 2014 09:59, "TR NS" <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 29, 2014 4:24:47 AM UTC-4, And Rosta wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29 Sep 2014 04:45, "TR NS" <tran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sunday, September 28, 2014 11:17:43 PM UTC-4, la durka wro= te:
>> >> la selpa'i has some discussion in the second half of = this post.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thank you, so much. THAT is an explanation. I finally underst= and {voi}.
>> >
>> > So, where as {poi} is an "identifier", narrowing do= wn the possible identity of the referent, {voi} is a "qualifier".= It doesn't restrict the identity, but selects the quality of the refer= ent that makes it pertinent. Another translations besides simply "as&q= uot; might be "in so far as".
>>
>> That is a different proposal than the one for using /voi/ for {poi= 'i}, which is the one you hadn't understood.
>
>
> Wait, that's a different "new voi" proposal? And both pr= oposed by la selpa'i?

That's my impression. But the "as"-like voi is= mooted just in a blog post, not in any list of formal proposals.

>>
>> It struck me as quite reasonable and understandable that you, newi= sh to these topics, didn't understand that proposal, but not that you b= lamed the proposer for that.
>
> Am I reading that right? Instead of explaining, you are taking the tim= e to rub my face in it?=C2=A0

No, just to point out that the ethos and etiquette of the in= ternet is that one takes it upon oneself to educate oneself as far as one c= an, and seeing that, others will be willing to give one a leg up to the are= as one's independent understanding cannot reach. One cannot reasonably = expect others to have prepackaged everything for one in easily digestible f= orm.

--And.

--
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.
--e89a8ff1bff87d530e0504310ce7--