Received: from mail-ee0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]:54369) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YGWrf-0005j6-Qh for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:57:21 -0800 Received: by mail-ee0-f61.google.com with SMTP id c41sf1937223eek.6 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:57:13 -0800 (PST) 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 :content-type: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; bh=VGo2GgChVwFExojQwytg50mXjcHa894rh5R29VTa3Hw=; b=ju2FaI9GKJB7V2HbK/1TMmH8Ol14GHq9btHXwy1dVN77vGwmzu6AHdnyXBWpqyWZWU mtNwFKhAEHrwADt/M6lzjV4sxn+w7r44P6b4+4WGrFUcWQyR03mrMHVTsUdDEU6O4AHD OPXKcsyewu99jmQZhMl3ewbJxjjgBulfi3RnigfEYE++JZ2dcDSedEMw7LphQXyB3tQU f6v3poU9Imo6n6eKDCSSU+gVW7p2L2000OR7UC8/v4X9aGyZiVmHtNzXD+sCZRTixGM7 SoVU2CNicyfWiLCWwOvAUOXSx8LswboS1PIuEiAzxkHjgwwPpF6K2BRGJnWeQ6O2Hw1M cOOw== X-Received: by 10.180.82.234 with SMTP id l10mr49742wiy.14.1422467833249; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:57:13 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.107.104 with SMTP id hb8ls373499wib.37.gmail; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:57:12 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.201.10 with SMTP id jw10mr683563wjc.3.1422467832853; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:57:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x230.google.com (mail-wg0-x230.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id jv2si212673wid.1.2015.01.28.09.57.12 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:57:12 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::230; Received: by mail-wg0-x230.google.com with SMTP id x12so22048968wgg.7 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:57:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.126.99 with SMTP id mx3mr9549792wib.66.1422467832645; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:57:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.56.208 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:57:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54C9193B.4000808@gmx.de> References: <54C80768.7020101@gmail.com> <0E34D85D50784B048209C3E055351E08@gmail.com> <54C9193B.4000808@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 14:57:12 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] {porsi} From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f8389d1de8e3b050dba19c9 X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::230 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: , X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) 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: On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:15 PM, selpa'i wrote: > > Do we agree that {ro da zo'u da jo'u da mintu da}? "ro da zo'u da jo'u da du da", yes. [...] 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) [74.125.83.61 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 (jjllambias[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 --e89a8f8389d1de8e3b050dba19c9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:15 PM, selpa'i wrote: > > Do we agree that {ro da zo'u da jo'u da mintu da}? "ro da zo'u da jo'u da du da", yes. > In the abstract, the letter "o" exists only once, just like there is only > one number "1". At the most abstract level, yes, but we talk about letter instances all the time. > 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. But that's not the most common way of talking about the letters of a word. If we were to talk like that we would most likely talk about "different letters", not just "letters". > 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}. Well, their most important difference is their position the word. One important difference is that one carries stress and the other one doesn't. > 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. > But what's the problem? If you switch around the wheels of a car, you still have the same car. The differences among the wheels are mostly irrelevant. (I know they can be relevant, but let's say they are all brand new, or pick a better example.) You can still talk about "the left front wheel" even though its molecules are not the same molecules they used to be. In the case of the "o" you don't even have to worry about molecules, "the first o" is just "the first o". You can say that it carries the stress, whether you have switched it or not, whatever that may mean. 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. > But they do differ in some things. 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})!). > I think it's fine, although you may want to do "pa boi by jo'u pa boi ry jo'u pa boi dy jo'u re boi ,o bu" to make it more uniform. 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. --e89a8f8389d1de8e3b050dba19c9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:15 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

Do we agree that {ro da zo'u da jo'u da mintu da}?

"ro da zo'u da jo'u da du da", yes.
=C2=A0
In the abstract, the lette= r "o" exists only once, just like there is only one number "= 1".

At the most abstract level, yes, = but we talk about letter instances all the time.
=C2=A0
When speaking abstractly about the letters in a = word, there would then however be two of the same "thing", and th= at would mean there are only distinct four referents.

=
But that's not the most common way of talking about the lett= ers of a word. If we were to talk like that we would most likely talk about= "different letters", not just "letters".
=C2= =A0
Talking about instances of the abs= tract 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 anoth= er. They differ in nothing, except - you might argue - in the property {lo = ka du ma kau}.

Well, their most important = difference is their position the word. One important difference is that one= carries stress and the other one doesn't.
=C2=A0=C2=A0
=
However, does this solve the problem? The wo= rd "brodo" is spelled correctly no matter which of those two &quo= t;o" letters you place first, and I think that's because there are= n't two distinct "o" letters, since there is nothing really t= o tell them apart.

But what's the p= roblem? If you switch around the wheels of a car, you still have the same c= ar. The differences among the wheels are mostly irrelevant. (I know they ca= n be relevant, but let's say they are all brand new, or pick a better e= xample.) You can still talk about "the left front wheel" even tho= ugh its molecules are not the same molecules they used to be. In the case o= f the "o" you don't even have to worry about molecules, "= ;the first o" is just "the first o". You can say that it car= ries the stress, whether you have switched it or not, whatever that may mea= n.=C2=A0

If you say that {me'o .obu} has two referents, which you must if you cl= aim {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 eac= h 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 prob= lem 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 writ= ten down; they can simply be in our minds.

<= div>But they do differ in some things.=C2=A0

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

I think it's fine, although you = may want to do "pa boi by jo'u pa boi ry jo'u pa boi dy jo'= ;u re boi ,o bu" to make it more uniform.

mu&= #39;o mi'e xorxes=C2=A0

--
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.
--e89a8f8389d1de8e3b050dba19c9--