Received: from mail-la0-f62.google.com ([209.85.215.62]:35407) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XczhR-0005DQ-LK for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:39:29 -0700 Received: by mail-la0-f62.google.com with SMTP id pn19sf488837lab.7 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:39:14 -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=KLsF9puCy1oyIBJJIiKnO+gx7VFWF9rGJwG5ZSn2lzE=; b=rwgDmY26BlKGxFVCau8sWQ4YFiy8tyrGZXXgCkNctoeJqTeboJNL69fsUsUGF6bClc 7PqDCjSntBc3n1Dv86H8STY/ehogvhg41rArqazwx2Ouw0wc3gzZ08gh4XpGU/eiAsT1 06JJoYgWozQ+JGB+4JOFXeeYkpblCUJ2M50g0crN4vsRkLhveveze2hAas+3PvjsQCwH uccJDFsyd/GEZMcPcMYwn5bdcX2YkAtV4hskcxMYA0lsUXWVHi/FrNVt/jgicVV0C0js JOkGnL2+BknwftW38mSMZ9/77Q2jYO6psgQ41e+tXaXDSBOqU5WJpviwk5X0iGHjinYo iWpA== X-Received: by 10.180.8.4 with SMTP id n4mr74564wia.0.1413045554411; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:39:14 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.98.69 with SMTP id eg5ls259872wib.50.canary; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:39:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.92.13 with SMTP id ci13mr4251wjb.5.1413045553968; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:39:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x234.google.com (mail-lb0-x234.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c04::234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id us10si139852lbc.1.2014.10.11.09.39.13 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:39:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::234; Received: by mail-lb0-x234.google.com with SMTP id n15so4561346lbi.39 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:39:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.201.72 with SMTP id jy8mr12507549lbc.78.1413045553864; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:39:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.61.107 with HTTP; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:39:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8449E7EF-03E6-426D-8E50-CF40F2D867F4@yahoo.com> 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> <8449E7EF-03E6-426D-8E50-CF40F2D867F4@yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:39:13 -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::234 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=001a11c372da4a267d0505284e8a X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a11c372da4a267d0505284e8a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:22 PM, 'John E. Clifford' via lojban < lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote: > We are back to the why of all this. Why keep proposing replacements for > perfectly good forms if you acknowledge they are perfectly good? If you are > just seeking some way of dealing with cases that are more difficult, why > not start by building on the easy cases, rather than on some more complex > forms that may do the same work? Your difficult example involves so many > logically (and Lojbanically) questionable moves that it can scarcely be > used as an argument for a differ approach without a number of intervening > steps justifying each move past an obstacle. To good from a hypothetical > version of a clear case to acclaim to have dealt with a difficult and > questionable one is not very convincing. > I'm not sure what it is you think I'm trying to convince you of. The cmavo "poi'i" was proposed by And many many years ago and many people have found it useful and not hard to understand at all. I didn't think my example was that difficult, but here's a simpler one: lo poi'i lo gerku cu troci lo ka ce'u kavbu ke'a What the dog tries to catch. 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. --001a11c372da4a267d0505284e8a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:22 PM, 'John E. Clifford' via lojban= <lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:
We are back to the why of all t= his. Why keep proposing replacements for perfectly good forms if you acknow= ledge they are perfectly good? If you are just seeking some way of dealing = with cases =C2=A0that are more difficult, why not start by building on the = easy cases, rather than on some more complex forms that may do the same wor= k?=C2=A0 Your difficult example involves so many logically (and Lojbanicall= y) questionable moves that it can scarcely be used as an argument for a dif= fer approach without a number of intervening steps justifying each move pas= t an obstacle. To good from a hypothetical version of a clear case to accla= im to have dealt with a difficult and questionable one is not very convinci= ng.

I'm not sure what i= t is you think I'm trying to convince you of. The cmavo "poi'i= " was proposed by And many many years ago and many people have found i= t useful and not hard to understand at all. I didn't think my example w= as that difficult, but here's a simpler one:

= =C2=A0 lo poi'i lo gerku cu troci lo ka ce'u kavbu ke'a
=C2=A0 What the dog tries to catch.

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.
--001a11c372da4a267d0505284e8a--