Received: from mail-la0-f63.google.com ([209.85.215.63]:41144) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XcxWl-0002ar-Hp for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 07:20:19 -0700 Received: by mail-la0-f63.google.com with SMTP id ge10sf459293lab.18 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 07:20:04 -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=2xijtYludhaUThwY9zMO67Xtlza3HT/v32D2dT0tH/g=; b=vZRyJilC+NmwZSdkm1jR0mSfdNVnCJg6iEhDnMv2Du5sijfmekD+hrQLBP648yNEBt FpOX9tWvzaSFATe+DB1W9RKj2NonbfFjmpFwia+nCVphPjM6nNkrsdBVMUiseRQNJHsq LXbP5bJQi7juf4sCknfPDYWuAzuvdsSSER7gnp4EoIgrt2UcJP/mCdI8radrZNLeGXw4 VQ/fJSy1sWkac9WAcveoOfzT4VRq8g9tSvT50k57Fw/rwZyL6IdU/4nbwV1qRmpkBge9 8+wldTQkejC9+JsaY91DEAAGhW8W9zn6u5maWBx5p/ISPSwj7lCa+gVpvnxymraiu5sp E+gQ== X-Received: by 10.152.19.97 with SMTP id d1mr164430lae.1.1413037204365; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 07:20:04 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.27.225 with SMTP id w1ls387250lag.2.gmail; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 07:20:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.43.66 with SMTP id u2mr2192384lal.1.1413037202895; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 07:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x22b.google.com (mail-lb0-x22b.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rb5si104989lbb.0.2014.10.11.07.20.02 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 11 Oct 2014 07:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b; Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id z12so4517387lbi.16 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 07:20:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.142.104 with SMTP id rv8mr11406718lbb.59.1413037202798; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 07:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.61.107 with HTTP; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 07:20:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5349359c-f884-4976-a3e1-b0610eabeff6@googlegroups.com> <20140928013358.GB28734@gonzales> <20140928152915.GB7320@gonzales> <20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales> <20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales> <20141005214350.GC1974@gonzales> <5433F201.2020902@gmail.com> <5434EA6C.9090507@gmail.com> <1412802488.55250.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1412861205.15295.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1412871334.88429.YahooMailNeo@web181106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1412904403.17231.YahooMailNeo@web181104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1412944837.7070.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1412988188.73626.YahooMailNeo@web181105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 11:20:02 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@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=001a11c3783e8701080505265c48 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a11c3783e8701080505265c48 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:39 AM, 'John E. Clifford' via lojban < lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > I got to wondering about "What I think John knows is possible", ignoring > the extra problems of cognitive predicates and using / for the descriptor, > since typefaces keep confusing LC ell with one and uc i. P > /x(Bi/y(^Kjx^y)), which Is not going to convert easily, as you say. > Actually, the English is ambiguous, but my example was just a referring term, not a complete formula: /x(Bi/y(^Kj/z(^Px^z)^y) if I understand the notation correctly. I suppose you just read the English and not the Lojban forms, which didn't share that ambiguity: lo poi'i mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke'a cumki xxx poi mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke'a cumki zo'e noi mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke'a cumki > But that is no reason to disparage cases that do convert easily. > We're not disparaging the more ergonomic forms, they are used all the time. Indeed, it makes me inclined to doubt the legitimacy of the form itself > (quantifying in and all that). > What would it mean that it was illegitimate? It wouldn't mean anything, or it would mean something else? mu'o mi'e xorxes -- 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. --001a11c3783e8701080505265c48 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:39 AM, 'John E. Clifford' via lojban = <lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:
=

I got to wondering about= "What I think John knows is possible", ignoring the extra proble= ms of cognitive predicates and using / for the descriptor, since typefaces = keep confusing LC ell with one and uc i. P /x(Bi/y(^Kjx^y)), which Is not g= oing to convert easily, as you say.
Actually, the English is ambiguous, but my example was just a = referring term, not a complete formula: =C2=A0/x(Bi/y(^Kj/z(^Px^z)^y) =C2= =A0if I understand the notation correctly. I suppose you just read the Engl= ish and not the Lojban forms, which didn't share that ambiguity:
<= div>
=C2=A0 lo poi'i mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke= 'a cumki
=C2=A0 xxx poi mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke'a= cumki
= =C2=A0 zo'e noi mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke= 9;a cumki

=C2=A0
=C2=A0But that is no reason to disparage cas= es that do convert easily. =C2=A0

<= /div>
=C2=A0We're not disparaging the more ergonomic forms, they ar= e used all the time.=C2=A0

Indeed, it makes me inclined to doubt the legitima= cy of the form itself (quantifying in and all that).

What would it mean that it was illegitimate? I= t wouldn't mean anything, or it would mean something else?
mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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.
--001a11c3783e8701080505265c48--