Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lurifax@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
In-Reply-To: <54C63614.3060308@gmx.de>
References: <54C6332A.6010907@gmail.com> <54C63614.3060308@gmx.de>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Dan_Ros=C3=A9n?= <lurifax@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:13:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAN2DD_HKZysVodXU1Cr5mprTmnL0CscPtzCgpGKKkd7ATzrW6A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Logical scope of LAhE
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9cc998e49d529050d8ebeed
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: 0.8
X-Spam_score_int: 8
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:  Thank you Ilmen for asking, and selpa'i for answering. On
   Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:41 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote: > Number 1)
   is correct - {tu'a} is opaque. (The rest of LAhE should be as > well, though
    Martin seemed to be hesitant about that; see the recent-ish > tersmu thread)
    > [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.8 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL    RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org
                             [listed in googlegroups.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org.	IN]
                             [A]
  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: gmx.de]
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3      RBL: Good reputation (+3)
                             [209.85.217.185 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
                             (lurifax[at]gmail.com)
  0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
                             CUSTOM_MED
  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_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  0.0 T_FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and
                             EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL      Mailspike good senders

--14dae9cc998e49d529050d8ebeed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Thank you Ilmen for asking, and selpa'i for answering.

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:41 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

> Number 1) is correct - {tu'a} is opaque. (The rest of LAhE should be as
> well, though Martin seemed to be hesitant about that; see the recent-ish
> tersmu thread)
>

This surprised me a little, and I'm happy that there has been a consensus.
What about jai?

Example: {da jai se djica mi}

Which of the following does this mean:
1) mi djica lo su'u da zo'u da co'e
2) da zo'u mi djica lo su'u da co'e

(I would expect 2.)

Yes, or you could say that it's the {be} that's opaque, since {broda be
> su'o da} is itself a selbri. The same happens with tenses inside
> {be}-clauses. Of course when the {da} is quantified inside a sub-bridi,
> then its scope won't come out either, which is what happens with {poi'i},
> or {noi} in {zo'e noi}.
>

Good! What about the scope of pe?

mi'e .dan.

-- 
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.

--14dae9cc998e49d529050d8ebeed
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Thank you Ilmen for asking, and selpa&#39;i for answering.=
<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 2=
6, 2015 at 1:41 PM, selpa&#39;i <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:sel=
adwa@gmx.de" target=3D"_blank">seladwa@gmx.de</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Number 1) is correct - {tu=
9;a} is opaque. (The rest of LAhE should be as well, though Martin seemed t=
o be hesitant about that; see the recent-ish tersmu thread)<span><br></span=
></blockquote><div><br>This surprised me a little, and I&#39;m happy that t=
here has been a consensus. What about jai?<br><br>Example: {da jai se djica=
 mi}<br><br>Which of the following does this mean:<br>1) mi djica lo su&#39=
;u da zo&#39;u da co&#39;e<br>2) da zo&#39;u mi djica lo su&#39;u da co&#39=
;e<br>=C2=A0<br>(I would expect 2.)<br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204=
,204);padding-left:1ex"><span></span>
Yes, or you could say that it&#39;s the {be} that&#39;s opaque, since {brod=
a be su&#39;o da} is itself a selbri. The same happens with tenses inside {=
be}-clauses. Of course when the {da} is quantified inside a sub-bridi, then=
 its scope won&#39;t come out either, which is what happens with {poi&#39;i=
}, or {noi} in {zo&#39;e noi}.<br></blockquote><div><br>Good! What about th=
e scope of pe? <br><br>mi&#39;e .dan.<br></div></div></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 />

--14dae9cc998e49d529050d8ebeed--