Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 18:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: TR NS <transfire@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <41aea447-a409-4218-abb4-f5f40d056d67@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <34b2a9f0-7ccb-4135-8795-7038cc996b42@googlegroups.com>
References: <b15b8cb4-2f0f-45e4-b630-6480ed7d4654@googlegroups.com>
 <34b2a9f0-7ccb-4135-8795-7038cc996b42@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni}
MIME-Version: 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="----=_Part_4912_1319649317.1412128339431"
X-Spam_score: 0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 1
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org",
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details.
 
 Content preview:  On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 5:51:57 PM UTC-4, Dustin Lacewell
    wrote: > > I'm putting this here because I was asked to do so (probably for
    > completeness in discourse) > > I have -never- used {le} to indicate a non-veridical
    description. I am > completely on-board with selpahi's observation that nearly
    all human > language is metaphorical and explicitly marking a description
    as > non-veridical seems to be a waste of breath. In most situations, your
    > speaker knows when you're making a non-veridical description. > > The example
    I habitually provide is, imagine some men are hanging out by a > water-cooler
    and some women walking past hear them making sexist remarks. > One women
   isn't going to confuse the other by saying something like "Those > dogs are
    disgusting". Does the listener really require such a > front-and-center indication
    of non-veridicality? As far as I'm concerned > the answer is blaring "no".
    We can have some articles for explicitly > marking non-veridical descriptions
    but they should hidden away in an > obscure cmavo that is there only to fulfill
    the promise that we can be as > precise as we want to in lojban. Use {pe'a}
    is my suggestion. > > {le} has always existed as a Definite Article for me.
    When I first started > studying Lojban I remember someone remarking quite
    aggressively that {le} > is DEFINITELY NOT the English "the". Since then,
    I've heard similar disgust > at even the notion that they share similar semantics.
    The impression I > originally was given was that "oh god, -nothing- from
   _ENGLISH_ could be > useful for communicating jbopre". Since then I have understood
    that the > feeling is more that the English "the" is simply muddied up the
    same way > {le} is muddied up with multiple semantics. > > Well then, that's
    fine because I've only ever used it for the major > definition of "the" as
    a standard Definite Article and in the most general > sense at that. From
    wikipedia: > > A definite article indicates that its noun is a particular
    one (or ones) >> identifiable to the listener. It may [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 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 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2      RBL: Average reputation (+2)
                             [209.85.192.187 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
  0.0 T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail
                             domains are different
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (transfire[at]gmail.com)
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
                             [score: 0.0000]
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID             Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU          Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
                             domain
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  2.0 LONGWORDS              Long string of long words
  0.0 T_FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and
                             EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different

------=_Part_4912_1319649317.1412128339431
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 5:51:57 PM UTC-4, Dustin Lacewell wrote:
>
> I'm putting this here because I was asked to do so (probably for 
> completeness in discourse)
>
> I have -never- used {le} to indicate a non-veridical description. I am 
> completely on-board with selpahi's observation that nearly all human 
> language is metaphorical and explicitly marking a description as 
> non-veridical seems to be a waste of breath. In most situations, your 
> speaker knows when you're making a non-veridical description.
>
> The example I habitually provide is, imagine some men are hanging out by a 
> water-cooler and some women walking past hear them making sexist remarks. 
> One women isn't going to confuse the other by saying something like "Those 
> dogs are disgusting". Does the listener really require such a 
> front-and-center indication of non-veridicality? As far as I'm concerned 
> the answer is blaring "no". We can have some articles for explicitly 
> marking non-veridical descriptions but they should hidden away in an 
> obscure cmavo that is there only to fulfill the promise that we can be as 
> precise as we want to in lojban. Use {pe'a} is my suggestion.
>
> {le} has always existed as a Definite Article for me. When I first started 
> studying Lojban I remember someone remarking quite aggressively that {le} 
> is DEFINITELY NOT the English "the". Since then, I've heard similar disgust 
> at even the notion that they share similar semantics. The impression I 
> originally was given was that "oh god, -nothing- from _ENGLISH_ could be 
> useful for communicating jbopre". Since then I have understood that the 
> feeling is more that the English "the" is simply muddied up the same way 
> {le} is muddied up with multiple semantics.
>
> Well then, that's fine because I've only ever used it for the major 
> definition of "the" as a standard Definite Article and in the most general 
> sense at that. From wikipedia:
>
> A definite article indicates that its noun is a particular one (or ones) 
>> identifiable to the listener. It may be something that the speaker has 
>> already mentioned, or it may be something uniquely specified. The definite 
>> article in English, for both singular and plural nouns, is *the*.
>
>
> This is -exactly- how I've used {le} in the past and how I describe it to 
> newcomers and even those jbopre who claim to have no clue what it means. 
> Contrast it against the definition of the Indefinite Article:
>
> An *indefinite* article indicates that its noun is not a particular one 
>> (or ones) identifiable to the listener. It may be something that the 
>> speaker is mentioning for the first time, or its precise identity may be 
>> irrelevant or hypothetical, or the speaker may be making a general 
>> statement about any such thing.
>
>
> To me, this is natural, intuitive and not complicated at all. It has been 
> pointed out to me that certain cultures don't have this distinction and so 
> it is not natural for everyone to think this way. But for me it is indeed 
> incredibly intuitive. The most important semantic that {le} introduces is a 
> *signal* to the listener that the referenced object *can be identified* either 
> through context, preknowledge or otherwise. This is especially clear when 
> contrasted against object descriptions where *no referent can be 
> identified**.* 
>
> What does this mean? I like to use examples:
>
> Let's say a teacher asks a student "What is your favorite fruit?" the 
> student my answer with an *indefinite description*, "Apples!". In this 
> case, there is no relevant apple. It isn't a quantification issue. The 
> student isn't merely saying that they {nelci ro lo plise}. There's no 
> quantification taking place at all, since there is no referent to the 
> description. There is no context or Universe of Discourse which allows the 
> listener to identify one ore more apples that the student was referring to. 
> But not because there arent any apples around - but because the description 
> is *literally indefinite*.
>
> Now let's change the thought experiment. We simply introduce a table where 
> a selection of various fruits are arranged. Now when the teacher asks "What 
> is your favorite fruit?" the student will invariably give a slightly 
> different answer that aims at the same objective of communicating their 
> favorite. They will say "The apple!". The description is now *definite. *It 
> isn't just *definite* in the mind of the speaker. There is a real, 
> objective and practical difference here. The listener now has a previously 
> inaccessible capability to *identify* -a- referent to the description. 
> We're not talking about accuracy on the part of the listener, or the 
> vagueness or specificity of the speaker. We don't care if the listener gets 
> it wrong because they are dumb, or the speaker isn't precise enough. We're 
> talking about a substantial and mechanical distinction in that the 
> formulation of the speech creates the *potential* for identification 
> because the speaker has provided a *definite description*. To contrast 
> how *definite *and *indefinite* descriptions create completely different 
> linguistic circumstances regarding referentiality and identification that 
> is *completely unrelated to vague or precise speech (ambiguity) *notice 
> that *regardless of the precision of speech, no indefinite description 
> can ever be identified as having a referent. *There is no context in 
> which the answer "Apples!" is relevant to any specific apple. It doesn't 
> even attribute the students preference to all apples; its *orthogonal* to 
> quantification.
>
> Further, the mechanical difference -has nothing to do- with 'coining' a 
> creative label for which to refer to something. A nickname, 
> impressionistic, utilitarian or otherwise non-veridical description that we 
> create in order to -help- identification. That's a second order concern *once 
> referentiality and therefore identification is *possible** in the first 
> place. Non-veridicality implies a definite description has already been 
> made.
>
> Some people will argue that this distinction isn't useful or claim to have 
> a complete inability to fathom such contexts where the distinction between *definite 
> *and *indefinite* descriptions is actually useful for communication. I 
> find it -*childishly trivial*- to come up with examples where the 
> distinction between the indefinite and definite descriptions of some 'kind' 
> or platonic class is important for encouraging comprehension between two 
> interlocutors.
>
> :: A just returns home to B::
> A: {coi}
> B: {coi .i xu do se pluka le draci}
> A: {uinai na go'i}
> B: {ue .i xu do se pluka lo draci}
> A: {je'a}
>
> A: Hello
> B: Hey. Did you enjoy the play?
> A: No, :(
> B: What? Do you like plays?
> A: Indeed.
>
> Now this example *assumes* that {lo} doesn't contain the semantics of 
> {le}, or rather, we can specifically utilize the semantic of {lo} that is 
> inaccessible to {le} by *contrasting* them. If we removed {le} from the 
> lexicon it would take a more verbose description in one of the cases. 
> Either "the play that you just saw" for the first appearance of draci or 
> "plays in general" or the second appearance. By letting the gadri 
> *indicate* or *signal* to the listener that the {draci} that we're 
> referring to is definite, probably contextually relevant or in some cases 
> perviously mentioned but more importantly *identifiable. *We then 
> constrast our second description against the {le} version by using {lo}. 
> Two speakers who speak my preference in lojban semantics immediate 
> recognizes this second question as asking about plays in a way where no 
> specific play is identifable. Therefore we implicitly and automatically 
> know that we're talking about plays "in general". The discourse is 
> efficient and clear.
>
> I have argued that {lo} and {le} have the same exact lojbanic expansion, 
> {le} doesn't affect quantification after all, it just makes this 
> metadiscourse signal to the listener. But if I had to come up with 
> something, if {lo broda} is expanded to {zo'e noi ke'a broda} then, in my 
> world, {le broda} is defined as {zo'e noi ke'a broda jecu se dubyfa'i do'o} 
> or something like that. Its probably wrong, but it just shows that the 
> identity of the thing for which the description is given must be concretely 
> identifiable.
>
> I appologize if there is a lot of tautology here, but I'm just trying to 
> drive home the impression I'm attempting to put forth.
>

Very well said. Would I could be so well spoken.

I pretty much agree with your view. But this leaves me wondering about {lo} 
versus {lei} and {loi}. I reread the section in the CLL and it doesn't 
quite gel. It seems to me that there are only three types of "descriptions":

1. specific thing within the discourse (the)
2. any instance of a thing (a/any)
3. formal thing 

The first two are exactly the same except for, as you say, the 
"metadiscourse" signal. But the third refers to the formal notation of a 
thing --this is the "mass" descriptor. But I think mass descriptor is a 
horrible name because it confuses the formal idea of a thing for the idea 
of a mass of individuals clumped together, which is silly. No, I don't 
imagine all the butter in the universal in a big mass ball when I say 
"butter is soft". Rather I am taking about butter as a general idea. Plato 
called these "forms" and though he believed they had a real existence and 
today we see them as concepts, they have nothing to do with quantification! 
So that's why {lei} and {loi} don't jive for me. To say "the men carried 
the piano together" I would not use {lei}, rather I expect there to be 
another word that means "all together", for argument sake say "ro" means 
that, so "ro lo" would be what I'd use.

I know I did not explain that as well as you, but I hope the idea comes 
through.

-- 
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.

------=_Part_4912_1319649317.1412128339431
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 5:51:57 PM UTC-4, D=
ustin Lacewell wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;m=
argin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><div>I'm putting this here because I was asked to do so (probably =
for completeness in discourse)</div><div><br></div><div>I have -never- used=
 {le} to indicate a non-veridical description. I am completely on-board wit=
h selpahi's observation that nearly all human language is metaphorical and =
explicitly marking a description as non-veridical seems to be a waste of br=
eath. In most situations, your speaker knows when you're making a non-verid=
ical description.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The example I habitually pro=
vide is, imagine some men are hanging out by a water-cooler and some women =
walking past hear them making sexist remarks. One women isn't going to conf=
use the other by saying something like "Those dogs are disgusting". Does th=
e listener really require such a front-and-center indication of non-veridic=
ality? As far as I'm concerned the answer is blaring "no". We can have some=
 articles for explicitly marking non-veridical descriptions but they should=
 hidden away in an obscure cmavo that is there only to fulfill the promise =
that we can be as precise as we want to in lojban. Use {pe'a} is my suggest=
ion.</div><div><br></div><div>{le} has always existed as a Definite Article=
 for me. When I first started studying Lojban I remember someone remarking =
quite aggressively that {le} is DEFINITELY NOT the English "the". Since the=
n, I've heard similar disgust at even the notion that they share similar se=
mantics. The impression I originally was given was that "oh god, -nothing- =
from _ENGLISH_ could be useful for communicating jbopre". Since then I have=
 understood that the feeling is more that the English "the" is simply muddi=
ed up the same way {le} is muddied up with multiple semantics.</div><div><b=
r></div><div>Well then, that's fine because I've only ever used it for the =
major definition of "the" as a standard Definite Article and in the most ge=
neral sense at that. From wikipedia:</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;bo=
rder-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">=
<span style=3D"color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.6363=
6302948px;line-height:20.3636360168457px">A definite article indicates that=
 its noun is a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener. It ma=
y be something that the speaker has already mentioned, or it may be somethi=
ng uniquely specified. The definite article in English, for both singular a=
nd plural nouns, is&nbsp;</span><i style=3D"color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family=
:sans-serif;font-size:13.63636302948px;line-height:20.3636360168457px">the<=
/i><span style=3D"color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.6=
3636302948px;line-height:20.3636360168457px">.</span></blockquote><div><br>=
</div><div>This is -exactly- how I've used {le} in the past and how I descr=
ibe it to newcomers and even those jbopre who claim to have no clue what it=
 means. Contrast it against the definition of the Indefinite Article:</div>=
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p=
x 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-lef=
t-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style=3D"color:rgb(37,37,37);font-fam=
ily:sans-serif;font-size:13.63636302948px;line-height:20.3636360168457px">A=
n&nbsp;</span><i style=3D"color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-s=
ize:13.63636302948px;line-height:20.3636360168457px">indefinite</i><span st=
yle=3D"color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.63636302948p=
x;line-height:20.3636360168457px">&nbsp;article indicates that its noun is =
not a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener. It may be some=
thing that the speaker is mentioning for the first time, or its precise ide=
ntity may be irrelevant or hypothetical, or the speaker may be making a gen=
eral statement about any such thing.</span></blockquote><div><br></div><div=
>To me, this is natural, intuitive and not complicated at all. It has been =
pointed out to me that certain cultures don't have this distinction and so =
it is not natural for everyone to think this way. But for me it is indeed i=
ncredibly intuitive. The most important semantic that {le} introduces is a =
<b>signal</b>&nbsp;to the listener that the referenced object <u style=3D"f=
ont-style:italic">can be identified</u>&nbsp;either through context, prekno=
wledge or otherwise. This is especially clear when contrasted against objec=
t descriptions where <i style=3D"text-decoration:underline">no referent can=
 be identified</i><b style=3D"text-decoration:underline">.</b>&nbsp;</div><=
div><br></div><div>What does this mean? I like to use examples:</div><div><=
br></div><div>Let's say a teacher asks a student "What is your favorite fru=
it?" the student my answer with an <i>indefinite description</i>, "Apples!"=
. In this case, there is no relevant apple. It isn't a quantification issue=
. The student isn't merely saying that they {nelci ro lo plise}. There's no=
 quantification taking place at all, since there is no referent to the desc=
ription. There is no context or Universe of Discourse which allows the list=
ener to identify one ore more apples that the student was referring to. But=
 not because there arent any apples around - but because the description is=
 <i>literally indefinite</i>.</div><div><br></div><div>Now let's change the=
 thought experiment. We simply introduce a table where a selection of vario=
us fruits are arranged. Now when the teacher asks "What is your favorite fr=
uit?" the student will invariably give a slightly different answer that aim=
s at the same objective of communicating their favorite. They will say "The=
 apple!". The description is now <i>definite. </i>It isn't just <i>definite=
</i>&nbsp;in the mind of the speaker. There is a real, objective and practi=
cal difference here. The listener now has a previously inaccessible capabil=
ity to <i>identify</i>&nbsp;-a- referent to the description. We're not talk=
ing about accuracy on the part of the listener, or the vagueness or specifi=
city of the speaker. We don't care if the listener gets it wrong because th=
ey are dumb, or the speaker isn't precise enough. We're talking about a sub=
stantial and mechanical distinction in that the formulation of the speech c=
reates the <i>potential</i>&nbsp;for identification because the speaker has=
 provided a <i>definite description</i>. To contrast how <i>definite </i>an=
d <i>indefinite</i>&nbsp;descriptions create completely different linguisti=
c circumstances regarding referentiality and identification that is <i>comp=
letely unrelated to vague or precise speech (ambiguity) </i>notice that <b>=
regardless of the precision of speech, no indefinite description can ever b=
e&nbsp;identified&nbsp;as having a&nbsp;referent<i>.</i>&nbsp;</b>There is =
no context in which the answer "Apples!" is relevant to any specific apple.=
 It doesn't even attribute the students preference to all apples; its <i>or=
thogonal</i>&nbsp;to quantification.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Further, =
the mechanical difference -has nothing to do- with 'coining' a creative lab=
el for which to refer to something. A nickname, impressionistic, utilitaria=
n or otherwise non-veridical description that we create in order to -help- =
identification. That's a second order concern <u style=3D"font-weight:bold"=
>once referentiality and therefore identification is *possible*</u>&nbsp;in=
 the first place. Non-veridicality implies a definite description has alrea=
dy been made.<br><br>Some people will argue that this distinction isn't use=
ful or claim to have a complete inability to fathom such contexts where the=
 distinction between <i>definite </i>and <i>indefinite</i>&nbsp;description=
s is actually useful for communication. I find it -<i style=3D"font-weight:=
bold">childishly trivial</i>- to come up with examples where the distinctio=
n between the indefinite and definite descriptions of some 'kind' or platon=
ic class is important for encouraging comprehension between two interlocuto=
rs.</div><div><br></div><div>:: A just returns home to B::</div><div>A: {co=
i}</div><div>B: {coi .i xu do se pluka le draci}</div><div>A: {uinai na go'=
i}</div><div>B: {ue .i xu do se pluka lo draci}</div><div>A: {je'a}</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>A: Hello</div><div>B: Hey. Did you enjoy the play?</div><=
div>A: No, :(</div><div>B: What? Do you like plays?</div><div>A: Indeed.</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>Now this example <i>assumes</i>&nbsp;that {lo} doesn=
't contain the semantics of {le}, or rather, we can specifically utilize th=
e semantic of {lo} that is inaccessible to {le} by <i>contrasting</i>&nbsp;=
them. If we removed {le} from the lexicon it would take a more verbose desc=
ription in one of the cases. Either "the play that you just saw" for the fi=
rst appearance of draci or "plays in general" or the second appearance. By =
letting the gadri <i>indicate</i>&nbsp;or <i>signal</i>&nbsp;to the listene=
r that the {draci} that we're referring to is definite, probably contextual=
ly relevant or in some cases perviously mentioned but more importantly <i s=
tyle=3D"font-weight:bold">identifiable. </i>We then constrast our second de=
scription against the {le} version by using {lo}. Two speakers who speak my=
 preference in lojban semantics immediate recognizes this second question a=
s asking about plays in a way where no specific play is identifable. Theref=
ore we implicitly and automatically know that we're talking about plays "in=
 general". The discourse is efficient and clear.<br><br>I have argued that =
{lo} and {le} have the same exact lojbanic expansion, {le} doesn't affect q=
uantification after all, it just makes this metadiscourse signal to the lis=
tener. But if I had to come up with something, if {lo broda} is expanded to=
 {zo'e noi ke'a broda} then, in my world, {le broda} is defined as {zo'e no=
i ke'a broda jecu se dubyfa'i do'o} or something like that. Its probably wr=
ong, but it just shows that the identity of the thing for which the descrip=
tion is given must be concretely identifiable.</div><div><br></div><div>I a=
ppologize if there is a lot of tautology here, but I'm just trying to drive=
 home the impression I'm attempting to put forth.</div></div></blockquote><=
div><br></div><div>Very well said. Would I could be so well spoken.</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>I pretty much agree with your view. But this leaves me wo=
ndering about {lo} versus {lei} and {loi}. I reread the section in the CLL =
and it doesn't quite gel. It seems to me that there are only three types of=
 "descriptions":</div><div><br></div><div>1. specific thing within the disc=
ourse (the)</div><div>2. any instance of a thing (a/any)</div><div>3. forma=
l thing&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>The first two are exactly the same e=
xcept for, as you say, the "metadiscourse" signal. But the third refers to =
the formal notation of a thing --this is the "mass" descriptor. But I think=
 mass descriptor is a horrible name because it confuses the formal idea of =
a thing for the idea of a mass of individuals clumped together, which is si=
lly. No, I don't imagine all the butter in the universal in a big mass ball=
 when I say "butter is soft". Rather I am taking about butter as a general =
idea. Plato called these "forms" and though he believed they had a real exi=
stence and today we see them as concepts, they have nothing to do with quan=
tification! So that's why {lei} and {loi} don't jive for me. To say "the me=
n carried the piano together" I would not use {lei}, rather I expect there =
to be another word that means "all together", for argument sake say "ro" me=
ans that, so "ro lo" would be what I'd use.</div><div><br></div><div>I know=
 I did not explain that as well as you, but I hope the idea comes through.<=
/div><div><br></div></div>

<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 <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/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_4912_1319649317.1412128339431--