Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <864278277.359141.1510451894891@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <ef141db1-9811-4d44-8458-972ddffdd883@googlegroups.com>
 <38c97c6d-7f22-48da-a55e-c748fbdb830f@googlegroups.com> <c7a816b1-df34-4520-be73-6401e077ecf6@googlegroups.com>
 <335313038.174144.1510412237273@mail.yahoo.com> <98db3894-350a-4361-84eb-d9033e0af862@googlegroups.com>
 <864278277.359141.1510451894891@mail.yahoo.com>
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 08:48:23 +0300
Message-ID: <CAO7bV+gXHHHnVi4E_hwnesKpfHtnFmrmEEtu96StQfQW4sq-Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c29282118df055dc2b67f"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.3
X-Spam_score_int: -12
X-Spam_bar: -

--f403045c29282118df055dc2b67f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2017-11-12 4:58 GMT+03:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban <
lojban@googlegroups.com>:

> For a more thorough (though slightly out-of-date) version of all this, se=
e
> The role of Error in the History of Loglans (in 8 parts or so) at
> pkipo.blogspot.com.
>
> 1.  What was the initial screw-up?  FOPL (or HOIL or whatever system you
> choose) depends upon a clear demarcation of different syntactic types (an=
d
> the corresponding different semantics).  JCB, from the beginning, scrambl=
ed
> these types: quantifiers (sentence-makers with one variable and one
> sentence) are terms, conjunctions (sentence-makers with two sentences) ar=
e
> term-makers, modals, tenses and negation (sentence-makers with one
> sentence) are predicate makers and so on.  How is teh structure that allo=
ws
> a logical system to work to be found in all that muddle?
>

That's certainly true (although wouldn't a language relexing western
logical notation be even harder than lojban to speak? that'd be rather easy
to test).


>  To be sure, in the interest of speakablity, some such changes will have
> to come about, but they are at the end of a process of derivation, not at
> the beginning.  Most of the 60 year Logjam construction process has been
> rying to patch up this gap -- and there is no evidence that it has
> succeeded -- or is even going in the right direction.  Monoparsing, yes
> (pretty much), but not evidence of correct monoparsing.
>

What would constitute correct monoparsing?


>
> 2. People who talk about SAE languages tend to forget what that term mean=
s
> in Sapir and Whorf.  The characteristic of SAE languages is summed up in
> literal surface reading of S: NP + VP.   The language consists of names o=
f
> things embedded in a matrix words for properties and relations and
> actions.  This contrasts with the=E2=80=9Dpurer=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9Cprimiti=
ve=E2=80=9D language where
> sentences are just long complex verbs.  S n W circularly inferred that SA=
E
> speakers view the world (have a metaphysics)  of isolated things and thei=
r
> properties, relations, and activities, while the Hopi or Menominee or
> whatever view the world as made up of processes (what verbs refer to).
>

However, isn't the notion of "process" is SWH-ish by itself? Is some
language has processes only and no properties and objects how to even
compare from it to other languages?
And if a Western language has all of the three notions then it's easy to
invent new words semantically similar but being verbs? Which Lojban did
with its {ti badna} =3D "This thing is bananaing", {mi ninmu} =3D "I am
woman-ning".


 Logjam, in its various forms, is clearly of the former sort, terms and
> predicates.
>

Do you mean that some languages (like Wakashan ones) do not have predicates
but instead pile morphemes up without dedicated markers showing roles of
arguments of predicates (which thus do not exist) in an attempt that the
meaning gets along, which of course de facto does?


>  The fact that every aspect of this distinction is simple hogwash doesn=
=E2=80=99t
> matter much, except that it does mean the Logjam was, from day one, usele=
ss
> for testing SWH and was (in SnW=E2=80=99s terms) not culturally neutral.
>
> 3.  To be sure, the logical traditions of India and China did not develop
> a set of extralinguistic symbols to deal with their notions.  However, th=
ey
> did use a rigorously controlled (oh, m,y how hard to get the rules right!=
)
> stylized version of the basic language (Sanskrit or Chinese or Tibetan)
> which could easily -- and has been -- converted to Western-style symbolic
> systems.  The concerns of these logical traditions (less clearly in China=
,
> where the tradition was crushed early on in the Confucian triumph) were t=
he
> standard ones of logic: validity, entailment, third values and the like.
> Indian logic is clearly (and Chinese possibly) intensional
>

JCB dealt with possible worlds too (which is clearly related to intensional
logic).
That was in early 90s.


, as opposed to the extensional core of Western logic.  It maybe that a
> HOIL (the assumed logic underlying languages) can enfold Indian logic
> without difficulty, but it has not yet done so (I think).  But Logjam,
> based on FOPL, is clearly not culturally neutral again.
>
> Of course, I assume that reformers are constantly changing how Logjam is
> to be defined and what its goals and values and property are. So, maybe a=
ll
> the traditional ones are now passe=E2=80=99 But I am still waiting for th=
e new list
> and wondering how that new list, if markedly different, can still claim t=
o
> be about a language in the Loglan tradition.
>

A list of what? New features? Which new features?


>
>
> On Saturday, November 11, 2017, 5:08:14 PM CST, guskant <
> gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Le samedi 11 novembre 2017 14:57:25 UTC, clifford a =C3=A9crit :
>
> Lojban=E2=80=99s claim to be based on logic is not significantly differen=
t from
> the similar claim for any language (sentences derived by transformations
> from underlying semantic representations which are often presented as
> formulae in some higher order intensional logic).  JCB ditched most of th=
e
> features of FOPL (the best then available) which gave for precision and
> most of the last 60 years has been spent trying to get at least some of
> that back (not yet all by a long shot).  Lojban is just an SAE language
> that looks a little strange because position in a sentence does not have =
a
> fixed meaning but rather depends upon the verb at the center.  End of
> borrowings from logic (hyperbole, but not much).
> The logic on which Lojban is =E2=80=9Cbased=E2=80=9D is again a European =
creation (mainly
> Anglo-American and German, with a little French and Italian).  It takes n=
o
> account of the logical traditions of India or China nor of the specialize=
d
> languages developed there for logic.  So, it is hardly culturally neutral
> in the sense suggested.  Of course, the need for cultural neutrality was
> prompted by the thoroughly bogus SWH, so its absence is not very damaging=
,
> except to the repeated claims to have it.
>
>
>
> coi la pycyn
>
> Thank you for the historical information about Loglan and Lojban. However=
,
> I (and maybe la sykyndyr also) tried to "define" what to be called the
> current and the future Lojban. That "definition" may be shifted from JCB'=
s
> or the later creaters' will.
>
> As for my point of view of cultural neutrality, the facts of the ancient
> India and the ancient China you pointed out cannot negate my theory.
>
>  Some of what are studied in the ancient Indian and the ancient China are
> now translated as "logic" into English because of the property of studies
> related to reasoning. However, the subjects of those studies are reasonin=
g,
> not the symbols of Sanscrit or Hanzi. Those cultures did not invent what
> can be translated as "symbolic logic", in which a new language consisting
> of symbols simplified and specialized for expressing logic was invented.
>
> As I have already discussed, that language invented for European logic ar=
e
> not logic itself. That language, as well as Lojban, should be able to
> express the ancient Indian logic or the ancient Chinese logic by defining
> suitably logical axioms and rules of deduction, just like the modern
> expression of fraction $frac{1}{3}$ can express both European "one over
> three" and Chinese "san fen zhi yi"; the latter consists of "three",
> "separation", postposition that means "of", "one".
>
> mi'e la guskant
>
>
> --
> 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/
> topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/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.
>

--=20
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 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.

--f403045c29282118df055dc2b67f
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">2017-11-12 4:58 GMT+03:00 &#39;John E Clifford&#39; via lojban <span di=
r=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank">=
lojban@googlegroups.com</a>&gt;</span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote=
" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><=
div><div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;fon=
t-size:13px"><div></div>
            <div>For a more thorough (though slightly out-of-date) version =
of all this, see The role of Error in the History of Loglans (in 8 parts or=
 so) at <a href=3D"http://pkipo.blogspot.com" target=3D"_blank">pkipo.blogs=
pot.com</a>.</div><div><br></div><div>1.=C2=A0 What was the initial screw-u=
p?=C2=A0 FOPL (or HOIL or whatever system you choose) depends upon a clear =
demarcation of different syntactic types (and the corresponding different s=
emantics).=C2=A0 JCB, from the beginning, scrambled these types: quantifier=
s (sentence-makers with one variable and one sentence) are terms, conjuncti=
ons (sentence-makers with two sentences) are term-makers, modals, tenses an=
d negation (sentence-makers with one sentence) are predicate makers and so =
on.=C2=A0 How is teh structure that allows a logical system to work to be f=
ound in all that muddle?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>=
That&#39;s certainly true (although wouldn&#39;t a language relexing wester=
n logical notation be even harder than lojban to speak? that&#39;d be rathe=
r easy to test).</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>=
<div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-si=
ze:13px"><div> =C2=A0To be sure, in the interest of speakablity, some such =
changes will have to come about, but they are at the end of a process of de=
rivation, not at the beginning.=C2=A0 Most of the 60 year Logjam constructi=
on process has been rying to patch up this gap -- and there is no evidence =
that it has succeeded -- or is even going in the right direction.=C2=A0 Mon=
oparsing, yes (pretty much), but not evidence of correct monoparsing.</div>=
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What would constitute correct =
monoparsing?</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><di=
v style=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:=
13px"><div><br></div><div>2. People who talk about SAE languages tend to fo=
rget what that term means in Sapir and Whorf.=C2=A0 The characteristic of S=
AE languages is summed up in literal surface reading of S: NP + VP. =C2=A0 =
The language consists of names of things embedded in a matrix words for pro=
perties and relations and actions.=C2=A0 This contrasts with the=E2=80=9Dpu=
rer=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9Cprimitive=E2=80=9D language where sentences are just =
long complex verbs.=C2=A0 S n W circularly inferred that SAE speakers view =
the world (have a metaphysics) =C2=A0of isolated things and their propertie=
s, relations, and activities, while the Hopi or Menominee or whatever view =
the world as made up of processes (what verbs refer to).</div></div></div><=
/blockquote><div><br></div><div>However, isn&#39;t the notion of &quot;proc=
ess&quot; is SWH-ish by itself? Is some language has processes only and no =
properties and objects how to even compare from it to other languages?</div=
><div>And if a Western language has all of the three notions then it&#39;s =
easy to invent new words semantically similar but being verbs? Which Lojban=
 did with its {ti badna} =3D &quot;This thing is bananaing&quot;, {mi ninmu=
} =3D &quot;I am woman-ning&quot;.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>=
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"font-family:Hel=
vetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div> =C2=A0Logjam, =
in its various forms, is clearly of the former sort, terms and predicates.<=
/div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Do you mean that some lan=
guages (like Wakashan ones) do not have predicates but instead pile morphem=
es up without dedicated markers showing roles of arguments of predicates (w=
hich thus do not exist) in an attempt that the meaning gets along, which of=
 course de facto does?</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa=
dding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Ari=
al,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div> =C2=A0The fact that every aspect of thi=
s distinction is simple hogwash doesn=E2=80=99t matter much, except that it=
 does mean the Logjam was, from day one, useless for testing SWH and was (i=
n SnW=E2=80=99s terms) not culturally neutral.</div><div><br></div><div>3.=
=C2=A0 To be sure, the logical traditions of India and China did not develo=
p a set of extralinguistic symbols to deal with their notions.=C2=A0 Howeve=
r, they did use a rigorously controlled (oh, m,y how hard to get the rules =
right!) stylized version of the basic language (Sanskrit or Chinese or Tibe=
tan) which could easily -- and has been -- converted to Western-style symbo=
lic systems.=C2=A0 The concerns of these logical traditions (less clearly i=
n China, where the tradition was crushed early on in the Confucian triumph)=
 were the standard ones of logic: validity, entailment, third values and th=
e like. Indian logic is clearly (and Chinese possibly) intensional</div></d=
iv></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>JCB dealt with possible worlds to=
o (which is clearly related to intensional logic).</div><div>That was in ea=
rly 90s.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">=
<div><div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;fo=
nt-size:13px"><div>, as opposed to the extensional core of Western logic.=
=C2=A0 It maybe that a HOIL (the assumed logic underlying languages) can en=
fold Indian logic without difficulty, but it has not yet done so (I think).=
=C2=A0 But Logjam, based on FOPL, is clearly not culturally neutral again.<=
/div><div><br></div><div>Of course, I assume that reformers are constantly =
changing how Logjam is to be defined and what its goals and values and prop=
erty are. So, maybe all the traditional ones are now passe=E2=80=99 But I a=
m still waiting for the new list and wondering how that new list, if marked=
ly different, can still claim to be about a language in the Loglan traditio=
n.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>A list of what? New fe=
atures? Which new features?=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc=
 solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helv=
etica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div>=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div=
><br></div>
           =20
            <div id=3D"m_4056626371282639260yahoo_quoted_0469784726" class=
=3D"m_4056626371282639260yahoo_quoted">
                <div style=3D"font-family:&#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;,Helvetic=
a,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a"><span class=3D"">
                   =20
                    <div>
                        On Saturday, November 11, 2017, 5:08:14 PM CST, gus=
kant &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gusni.kantu@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gusni.k=
antu@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
                    </div>
                    <div><br></div>
                    <div><br></div>
                    </span><div><div id=3D"m_4056626371282639260yiv83637441=
53"><div><span class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr"><br clear=3D"none"><br clear=3D"=
none">Le samedi 11 novembre 2017 14:57:25 UTC, clifford a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:=
<blockquote class=3D"m_4056626371282639260yiv8363744153gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"=
><div><div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;f=
ont-size:13px"><div></div>
            <div>Lojban=E2=80=99s claim to be based on logic is not signifi=
cantly different from the similar claim for any language (sentences derived=
 by transformations from underlying semantic representations which are ofte=
n presented as formulae in some higher order intensional logic).=C2=A0 JCB =
ditched most of the features of FOPL (the best then available) which gave f=
or precision and most of the last 60 years has been spent trying to get at =
least some of that back (not yet all by a long shot).=C2=A0 Lojban is just =
an SAE language that looks a little strange because position in a sentence =
does not have a fixed meaning but rather depends upon the verb at the cente=
r.=C2=A0 End of borrowings from logic (hyperbole, but not much).</div><div>=
The logic on which Lojban is =E2=80=9Cbased=E2=80=9D is again a European cr=
eation (mainly Anglo-American and German, with a little French and Italian)=
.=C2=A0 It takes no account of the logical traditions of India or China nor=
 of the specialized languages developed there for logic.=C2=A0 So, it is ha=
rdly culturally neutral in the sense suggested.=C2=A0 Of course, the need f=
or cultural neutrality was prompted by the thoroughly bogus SWH, so its abs=
ence is not very damaging, except to the repeated claims to have it. =C2=A0=
</div><div><div style=3D"font-family:&#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;,Helvetica,Ari=
al,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a"><div><div><div><div><br clear=
=3D"none"></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div=
><br clear=3D"none"></div><div><div><br clear=3D"none"></div><div>coi la py=
cyn</div><div><br clear=3D"none"></div><div>Thank you for the historical in=
formation about Loglan and Lojban. However, I (and maybe la sykyndyr also) =
tried to &quot;define&quot; what to be called the current and the future Lo=
jban. That &quot;definition&quot; may be shifted from JCB&#39;s or the late=
r creaters&#39; will.</div><div><br clear=3D"none"></div><div>As for my poi=
nt of view of cultural neutrality, the facts of the ancient India and the a=
ncient China you pointed out cannot negate my theory.</div><div><br clear=
=3D"none"></div><div>=C2=A0Some of what are studied in the ancient Indian a=
nd the ancient China are now translated as &quot;logic&quot; into English b=
ecause of the property of studies related to reasoning. However, the subjec=
ts of those studies are reasoning, not the symbols of Sanscrit or Hanzi. Th=
ose cultures did not invent what can be translated as &quot;symbolic logic&=
quot;, in which a new language consisting of symbols simplified and special=
ized for expressing logic was invented.=C2=A0</div><div><br clear=3D"none">=
</div><div>As I have already discussed, that language invented for European=
 logic are not logic itself. That language, as well as Lojban, should be ab=
le to express the ancient Indian logic or the ancient Chinese logic by defi=
ning suitably logical axioms and rules of deduction, just like the modern e=
xpression of fraction $frac{1}{3}$ can express both European &quot;one over=
 three&quot; and Chinese &quot;san fen zhi yi&quot;; the latter consists of=
 &quot;three&quot;, &quot;separation&quot;, postposition that means &quot;o=
f&quot;, &quot;one&quot;.</div><div class=3D"m_4056626371282639260yiv836374=
4153yqt2981949283" id=3D"m_4056626371282639260yiv8363744153yqtfd40345"><div=
><br clear=3D"none"></div><div>mi&#39;e la guskant</div><div><br clear=3D"n=
one"></div><div><br clear=3D"none"></div></div></div></div></span><div clas=
s=3D"m_4056626371282639260yiv8363744153yqt2981949283" id=3D"m_4056626371282=
639260yiv8363744153yqtfd38940">

<p></p>

-- <br clear=3D"none"><span class=3D"">
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br clear=3D"none"></span>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscrib=
e@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank">lojban+unsubscribe@<wbr>googlegroups.=
com</a>.<span class=3D""><br clear=3D"none">
To post to this group, send email to <a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" hre=
f=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.=
com</a>.<br clear=3D"none">
Visit this group at <a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" href=3D"https://grou=
ps.google.com/group/lojban" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/<wb=
r>group/lojban</a>.<br clear=3D"none">
For more options, visit <a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" href=3D"https://=
groups.google.com/d/optout" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/<=
wbr>optout</a>.<br clear=3D"none"></span></div></div></div></div>
                </div>
            </div></div></div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">

<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Goog=
le Groups &quot;lojban&quot; group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/=
d/topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/unsubscribe" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.go=
ogle.com/d/<wbr>topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/<wbr>unsubscribe</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to <a href=
=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank">lojban+un=
subscribe@<wbr>googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/<wbr>group/lojban</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/<wbr>optout</a>.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></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"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http=
s://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 />

--f403045c29282118df055dc2b67f--