Received: from mail-pa0-f64.google.com ([209.85.220.64]:33370) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1borvi-0004ZY-Li for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:56:18 -0700 Received: by mail-pa0-f64.google.com with SMTP id fi2sf4388366pad.0 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:56:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=afW5/Iq+LdvNTAPAko0KuE85v4Qq5Wn6wB3NO8m59SI=; b=JosJSXnb16hfvqVlu9777bBpfnMXMTaV27Et5qBAnPKW49BHVhOrd4C4WiAa60hwXe I5e2XVyKISdUiGgFOx+5RDLPIf0C1r+K9T6iv4Az1ETTty1sOhhcqU2OsfacgnqrB3n1 aYGxYzRgVQtoiunNgH1EuVA9GT+UC+nS81DnMfAiDinxPxARiXtXJszP5v9x14P3bKQI jmY5qCQGCrqVpjaAdCoD1ps0NF3LD6bLWWDMQKAXlQ2par98XT8RwBIU2zjbOw1QUCxt v9dQeP8TWz6Stw5KUt9qg1ZOAXUPkzab6Ovmkuu4VZeLUhkIsVfusdBlF3SXgXVJSUAy 2QLw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=afW5/Iq+LdvNTAPAko0KuE85v4Qq5Wn6wB3NO8m59SI=; b=OFCI/dfAG90pW44P8wv+ENeLgRIz3nK8Spg43i8+9wBg+uzclgPwd+3edWJ4xqJ+YF 7o+kIVDPqZ7QhrSfl03iI8gtxw9bvYgZHFZqWnBhODZYICtY08MNOgZr/rr/tcoZgNxi oejnA5f2QnoiYzIP7Pc7QyTJPGpLEaiQL4L4O+4G/Dk2OhPfkGM8SdcqfTyMPGxoWLU8 wl+wGSi0c6x9twsnapZiQG1G022IUXpTTqJ1Y3Jpvk8TLQIEHWfSUtYs3mim7mefy16p uXqaXdVJyrdA1auj1umzHRtLcuh5w7yLciPW+FkcWUQQiaYJDtBBPtmbhvi2Cacv9ueN u10w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=sender:x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=afW5/Iq+LdvNTAPAko0KuE85v4Qq5Wn6wB3NO8m59SI=; b=ZhVSGJTtGszs9w3AglcPU9JxHpV88QifNC834SkbO3rjjCumtL6TtAp4nZrLOtRdd+ Fjv04m80HLF3UcD40PSTIxrkPDKCHBYWPphMwa+1lDFZNVKy4rJZRO92CN9F2RrR5bEt XvnA+dbkWh8pSsmV4GxODOi8G9ecRa/sTODd1W7eGMPZBFnzO8NNZBVLnSIuICYXuytj Wm2ULuIY1HbtmJJxYOobHZiMUy9GhRHs0g1n3qU8pXTg4mm9JB3RPVUBg7INA2SOVheW ZG/xvwOztvqALX9iRKAxLlcujMEj+r1HmAuu1PXdvfD2Y/Tq50qlkhstExQoc0rNUybl AmVw== Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RnnG2YO5JFmsIbZ3jPNKlW+uDmvjNgfwhm225d6XpGlXMZnXK4kFG7sPehyBm+N9A== X-Received: by 10.157.39.131 with SMTP id c3mr1654402otb.15.1474980968563; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:56:08 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.157.47.41 with SMTP id h38ls7500676otb.2.gmail; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:56:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.31.56.74 with SMTP id f71mr5142452vka.26.1474980968180; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:56:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-x22f.google.com (mail-yw0-x22f.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22f]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u125si224179itc.0.2016.09.27.05.56.08 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:56:08 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of susannah.j.d@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22f; Received: by mail-yw0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id g192so7460015ywh.1 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:56:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.129.84.213 with SMTP id i204mr20577107ywb.218.1474980967452; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:56:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.170.39 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:56:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <309770757.1620403.1474910440149@mail.yahoo.com> From: Susannah Doss Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 08:56:06 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] A Simpler Connective System (blog article) To: lojban@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114d6f229d96b9053d7cc4e8 X-Original-Sender: susannah.j.d@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of susannah.j.d@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22f as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=susannah.j.d@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-Spam-Checked-In-Group: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_bar: - --001a114d6f229d96b9053d7cc4e8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > My experience with lo nintadni is that the problem is definitely not in > the system itself but in how it is taught. > CLL by design is not a tutorial, and other textbooks by far only tried to > copy it, successfully or unsuccessfully. The new system is much more intuitive than the old. I don't think that is entirely due to how it is taught. Having 5 words to remember instead of 26 is nice *assuming 5 can do the work of 26*. I've been reading the CLL in various sections throughout the book and I haven't come across as much concept confusion as I have when attempting to make it through the section on the connective system. CLL is indeed not a tutorial, but I feel like I gain much more understanding out of it than reading the textbooks. It makes everything make sense and feel connected with the top-down view. I feel the theoretical basis for old connective system isn't great. It doesn't feel elegant. It doesn't seem to fit within the Lojban language as well as other concepts. I don't really notice others using the connectives too much either in the IRC. But errr, I may have not been paying the closest attention. I can at least speak for myself in that the old system confuses the hell out of me when reading about it in CLL compared to reading other concepts in CLL. I want to use connectives but I don't know how! On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > > > 2016-09-27 15:18 GMT+03:00 Susannah Doss : > >> As a *nintadni *whose opinion arguably doesn't matter that much*, I've >> avoided using connectives because I was horribly confused by what I've read >> about the existing system. *.i .ie ji'a lo frica nintadni cu tugni lo >> du'u mi'a cinmo lo xrani .uanmonai *There were so many words to remember >> for different situations! When I read the new proposal, I immediately >> understood the proposed system. It seems much more elegant than the >> existing system. I really like it. *.i lo mibypre cu pa'itce lo melbi >> selti'i* >> > > My experience with lo nintadni is that the problem is definitely not in > the system itself but in how it is taught. > CLL by design is not a tutorial, and other textbooks by far only tried to > copy it, successfully or unsuccessfully. > > >> ** to .i a'o lo mrilu mibziljmina cu nalkansa lo donynabmi toi* >> >> *.i ki'e la zabna donpre* >> *.i mi'e la .suzanys.* >> >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:34 AM, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Em segunda-feira, 26 de setembro de 2016 21:31:11 UTC+3, aionys escreveu: >>>> >>>> Aha, I found .xorxes.'s proposal. Apparently it overloads {gi}, while >>>> this one does not? >>>> >>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/ExtEumbYoQg >>>> >>> >>> You can also find a boiled down version of it. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:20 AM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban < >>>> loj...@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Since JCB through out the basic structure of FOPL on day one of the >>>>> development of Loglan and decided to graft a pseudo form onto a SAE base, >>>>> things like trying to simplify the conjunction system have been a matter of >>>>> ever increasing complexity, interrupted occasionally by attempts to get >>>>> back to the basic underlying simplicity -- with scarcely visible success. >>>>> To be sure, Lojban has achieved the monoparsing with which it should have >>>>> begun at the cost of Byzantine complexity (and questionable accuracy) But >>>>> it seems unlikely that much reform can keep this result and cut through the >>>>> mare's nest. There are those that love the complexity and the documented >>>>> structure (the best documentation in the language business, after all) and >>>>> -- despite occasional complaints about not getting more new people -- glory >>>>> in their isolated mastery, and so they are not interested in >>>>> "improvements". Mere improvers are also too tied up in the status quo to >>>>> consider scrapping the mess and starting over on the right foot this time. >>>>> So, changes, fueled merely be convenience or clarity, are not likely to >>>>> occur. Changes that add to complexity are always welcome, of course. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, September 26, 2016 11:41 AM, And Rosta >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 26 September 2016 at 16:04, selpahi wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 26.09.2016 16:43, And Rosta wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Having given the matter about .0001% of the thought you have, I wonder >>>>> whether the gi'i terminator is optimal. Firstly it would not always be >>>>> easy to work out on the fly when it is and isn't elidable, so the >>>>> prudent strategy would be to leave it in except when certain it is >>>>> elidable. Secondly, when it isn't elided it adds an extra word and two >>>>> extra syllables. A better alternative would be to introduce medial >>>>> conjuncts with _go_ rather than _gi_, and use _gi_ only for introducing >>>>> final conjuncts: {ga JA A go B go C gi D}. (Or, one step neater, use >>>>> _gu_ for medial conjuncts and _go_ for the tanru coordination >>>>> introducer. Or _ge_.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The only times {gi'i} would not be elidible is if another connective >>>>> follows that is supposed to apply to the entire forethought connection to >>>>> its left. In all other cases {gi'i} is elidible, because each {gi} can only >>>>> devour exactly one sumti, after which the entire connection ends >>>>> automatically. >>>>> >>>>> Your strategy with {go} would involve much more forethought than this, >>>>> because you would have to be absolutely certain that you only want to add >>>>> exactly one more item. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, but in designing an ergonomic loglang -- which okay, Lojban isn't >>>>> and doesn't aspire to be, but we're kind of imagining if it were trying to >>>>> be -- should minimizing speaker forethought be prioritized over, say, >>>>> minimizing hearer backtracking, or minimizing verbosity? (I think no.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Do you have any situations in mind where working out whether {gi'i} is >>>>> elidible would not be easy? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was thinking of {ga JA1 ga JA2 ga JA3 A gi B gi C gi D gi E gi F gi >>>>> G gi H gi I gi J gi K}, which I presume would treat A--K as conjuncts of >>>>> JA3, and would require two {gi'i}s (terminating JA3 and JA2) to mark the >>>>> intended structure (whatever it is). Have I misunderstood? I suppose it's >>>>> not hard to work out that gi'i is unelidable, so I will withdraw the first >>>>> of my two objections. A reason for preferring the terminator over >>>>> alternatives is that terminators are the Lojban way; but a reason for >>>>> preferring terminatorless alternatives is that they can potentially involve >>>>> incremental parsing without lookahead, which I think is >>>>> psycholinguistically much less taxing, and that terminators are >>>>> psycholinguistically alien. >>>>> >>>>> --And. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your comment. >>>>> >>>>> ~~~mi'e la solpa'i >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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+un...@googlegroup s.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/grou p/lojban >>>>> . >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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+un...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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+un...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> mu'o mi'e .aionys. >>>> >>>> .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o >>>> (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) >>>> >>> -- >>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "lojban" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to >> pic/lojban/ewQLBEaH52s/unsubscribe. >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --001a114d6f229d96b9053d7cc4e8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My = experience with lo nintadni is that the problem is definitely not in the sy= stem itself but in how it is taught.
CLL by design is not a tutorial, an= d other textbooks by far only tried to copy it, successfully or unsuccessfu= lly.

The new system is much more intuitive= than the old. I don't think that is entirely due to how it is taught. = Having 5 words to remember instead of 26 is nice=C2=A0assuming 5 can do = the work of 26. I've been reading the CLL in various sections throu= ghout the book and I haven't come across as much concept confusion as I= have when attempting to make it through the section on the connective syst= em. CLL is indeed not a tutorial, but I feel like I gain much more understa= nding out of it than reading the textbooks. It makes everything make sense = and feel connected with the top-down view. I feel the theoretical basis for= old connective system isn't great. It doesn't feel elegant. It doe= sn't seem to fit within the Lojban language as well as other concepts. = I don't really notice others using the connectives too much either in t= he IRC. But errr, I may have not been paying the closest attention. I can a= t least speak for myself in that the old system confuses the hell out of me= when reading about it in CLL compared to reading other concepts in CLL.
I want to use connectives but I don't know how!
<= /div>

On Tue, Sep = 27, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

2016-09-27 15:18 GMT+03:00 Susannah Doss <susannah.j.d@gmail.com= >:
As a=C2=A0<= i>nintadni=C2=A0whose opinion arguably doesn't matter that much*, I= 've avoided using connectives because I was horribly confused by what I= 've read about the existing system.=C2=A0.i .ie ji'a lo frica ni= ntadni cu tugni lo du'u mi'a cinmo lo xrani .uanmonai=C2=A0Ther= e were so many words to remember for different situations! When I read the = new proposal, I immediately understood the proposed system. It seems much m= ore elegant than the existing system. I really like it.=C2=A0.i lo mibyp= re cu pa'itce lo melbi selti'i

My experience with lo nintadni is that the problem is definite= ly not in the system itself but in how it is taught.
CLL by desig= n is not a tutorial, and other textbooks by far only tried to copy it, succ= essfully or unsuccessfully.


* to .i = a'o lo mrilu mibziljmina cu nalkansa lo donynabmi toi
=
.i ki'e la zabna donpre
.i mi= 9;e la .suzanys.

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:34 AM, <gle= ki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:


Em segunda-feira,= 26 de setembro de 2016 21:31:11 UTC+3, aionys escreveu:
Aha, I found .xorxes.'s proposa= l. Apparently it overloads {gi}, while this one does not?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/Ex= tEumbYoQg

You can also fin= d a boiled down version of it.
=C2=A0


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:20 AM, 'John E Clifford' via= lojban <loj...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Since J= CB through out the basic structure of FOPL on day one of the development of= Loglan and decided to graft a pseudo form onto a SAE base, things like try= ing to simplify the conjunction system have been a matter of ever increasin= g complexity, interrupted occasionally by attempts to get back to the basic= underlying simplicity -- with scarcely visible success.=C2=A0 To be sure, = Lojban has achieved the monoparsing with which it should have begun at the = cost of Byzantine complexity (and questionable accuracy) But it seems unlik= ely that much reform can keep this result and cut through the mare's ne= st.=C2=A0 There are those that love the complexity and the documented struc= ture (the best documentation in the language business, after all) and -- de= spite occasional complaints about not getting more new people -- glory in t= heir isolated mastery, and=C2=A0 so they are not interested in "improv= ements".=C2=A0 Mere improvers are also too tied up in the status quo t= o consider scrapping the mess and starting over on the right foot this time= .=C2=A0 So, changes, fueled merely be convenience or clarity, are not likel= y to occur.=C2=A0 Changes that add to complexity are always welcome, of cou= rse. =C2=A0






On 26 September 2016 at 16:04, selpahi <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:
On 26.09.2016 16:43, And Rosta wrote:
Having given the matter about .0001% of the thought you have, I wonder
whether the gi'i terminator is optimal. Firstly it would not always be<= br clear=3D"none"> easy to work out on the fly when it is and isn't elidable, so the
prudent strategy would be to leave it in except when certain it is
elidable. Secondly, when it isn't elided it adds an extra word and two<= br clear=3D"none"> extra syllables. A better alternative would be to introduce medial
conjuncts with _go_ rather than _gi_, and use _gi_ only for introducing
final conjuncts: {ga JA A go B go C gi D}. (Or, one step neater, use
_gu_ for medial conjuncts and _go_ for the tanru coordination
introducer. Or _ge_.)

The only times {gi'i} would not be elidible is if another connective fo= llows that is supposed to apply to the entire forethought connection to its= left. In all other cases {gi'i} is elidible, because each {gi} can onl= y devour exactly one sumti, after which the entire connection ends automati= cally.

Your strategy with {go} would involve much more forethought than this, beca= use you would have to be absolutely certain that you only want to add exact= ly one more item.

Yes, but in designing an ergonomic loglang -- which okay, Lojban i= sn't and doesn't aspire to be, but we're kind of imagining if i= t were trying to be -- should minimizing speaker forethought be prioritized= over, say, minimizing hearer backtracking, or minimizing verbosity? (I thi= nk no.)
=C2=A0

Do you have any situations in mind where working out whether {gi'i} is = elidible would not be easy?

I was thinking of {ga JA1 ga JA2 ga JA3 A gi B gi C gi= D gi E gi F gi G gi H gi I gi J gi K}, which I presume would treat A--K as= conjuncts of JA3, and would require two {gi'i}s (terminating JA3 and J= A2) to mark the intended structure (whatever it is). Have I misunderstood? = I suppose it's not hard to work out that gi'i is unelidable, so I w= ill withdraw the first of my two objections. A reason for preferring the te= rminator over alternatives is that terminators are the Lojban way; but a re= ason for preferring terminatorless alternatives is that they can potentiall= y involve incremental parsing without lookahead, which I think is psycholin= guistically much less taxing, and that terminators are psycholinguistically= alien.

--And.


=C2=A0

Thank you for your comment.

~~~mi'e la solpa'i


--
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+un...@googlegroup s.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj= ...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/gro= u p/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/o= p tout.


<= /div>
--
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+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj= ...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/gro= up/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/o= ptout.


=

--
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+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroup= s.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban= .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout= .



--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be= denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, = I am your father. :D )

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Goog= le Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.go= ogle.com/d/topic/lojban/ewQLBEaH52s/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+un= subscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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= s://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--001a114d6f229d96b9053d7cc4e8--