Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.18;
Message-ID: <54C9193B.4000808@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:15:39 +0100
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] {porsi}
References: <54C80768.7020101@gmail.com>	<CAO7tK2eYD0OF5t70RoZfoV1H7n+fnQaurofcvGVStj-t7FBydQ@mail.gmail.com>	<ccebc81f-ae84-40ef-9177-703a93c223d9@googlegroups.com>	<CAO7tK2dbSSm=HZ2dcznzSmiXNqeBqM8n_GEsSvojUPY3YVc9wg@mail.gmail.com>	<A1362A1499624C6A811E1805424FD6D0@gmail.com>	<CAO7tK2fBk25gK3GT6Nj6OrnREYaWg7coX0pqp4PxYa1ND=iX_w@mail.gmail.com>	<0E34D85D50784B048209C3E055351E08@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2eaP56de-ywMnDSP_JCc=_gZ1BxNPkua9Xn_oGmFU9Okw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2eaP56de-ywMnDSP_JCc=_gZ1BxNPkua9Xn_oGmFU9Okw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
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:  la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 1:48 PM,
    Alex Burka <durka42@gmail.com > <mailto:durka42@gmail.com>> wrote: > > How
    can this be, if here the porsi1 is b-r-o-d-o, but porsi3 is {b, > r, o, d}.
    > > > But I don't agree that porsi3 is {b. r, o, d}. As I keep saying, I
   don't > think porsi3 is a set, I think porsi3 are the members of porsi1, and
    I > think that the sequence b-r-o-d-o has five members (two of which happen
    > to be two instances of the same type). So I consider "brodo" a > five-letter
    word, not a four-letter word. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.8 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]
  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 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3      RBL: Good reputation (+3)
                             [209.85.212.187 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
                             (seladwa[at]gmx.de)
 -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

la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Alex Burka <durka42@gmail.com
> <mailto:durka42@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     How can this be, if here the porsi1 is b-r-o-d-o, but porsi3 is {b,
>     r, o, d}.
>
>
> But I don't agree that porsi3 is {b. r, o, d}. As I keep saying, I don't
> think porsi3 is a set, I think porsi3 are the members of porsi1, and I
> think that the sequence b-r-o-d-o has five members (two of which happen
> to be two instances of the same type). So I consider "brodo" a
> five-letter word, not a four-letter word.

I agree with all of that, but to me there is at least a slight oddity 
about the duplicate letter "o".

Do we agree that {ro da zo'u da jo'u da mintu da}? In the abstract, the 
letter "o" exists only once, just like there is only one number "1". 
When speaking abstractly about the letters in a word, there would then 
however be two of the same "thing", and that would mean there are only 
distinct four referents. Talking about instances of the abstract letter 
is the only easy way out of this, but then there still remains the 
slight problem that both of those instances are identical to one 
another. They differ in nothing, except - you might argue - in the 
property {lo ka du ma kau}. However, does this solve the problem? The 
word "brodo" is spelled correctly no matter which of those two "o" 
letters you place first, and I think that's because there aren't two 
distinct "o" letters, since there is nothing really to tell them apart.

If you say that {me'o .obu} has two referents, which you must if you 
claim {ci moi lo mu lerfu}, then you claim that the expression "o" 
exists more than once. This is fine by me, but it requires a special 
domain to work, one in which there are only instances of letters (even 
though each instance can itself be a kind). I would probably feel more 
at ease (for a general solution) if it involved {mupli}, but then the 
aforementioned problem still remains: The two instances differ in 
nothing, and either of them can be the third letter in "brodo". And 
these so-called instances of the letters are still very abstract, since 
words aren't always written down; they can simply be in our minds.

This intricacy is what kept me from proposing a solution similar to 
yours yesterday (I had thought about the expression {by jo'u ry jo'u re 
boi .obu jo'u dy} and found it very strange (with or without {me'o})!).

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

-- 
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.