From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 17 19:36:42 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 17 May 2006 19:36:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgYMh-0004Lw-70 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:35:51 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.206]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgYMf-0004Ln-1h for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:35:51 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id f1so386725nzc for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:35:47 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=RIhUGdgmvP92vkwDNbwmzJjgiuToXyRIDmey0gzhax+js3tHkyI8NjpD0kGsFVM2jPzVTdNRVFD5BxOJdi5TeDESeuxDygQd4j/UlhKDT3TaMxOvQVErGjNLNn3BIQWdHWrx2ddxyQGtnOEnTxI9Vvi0wgtEa7yI+ZDB3sBpv20= Received: by 10.36.61.2 with SMTP id j2mr23997nza; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:35:47 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <446BD227.8040906@ropine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060517151821.39056.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <446BD227.8040906@ropine.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11601 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/17/06, Seth Gordon wrote: > > This idea of 'absolutely all, with no exceptions whatsoever' as a > > definition for 'all' seems to have been batted around a bit by this > > point. I don't find that I use it in normal conversation -- does anyone > > have a good example of actual usage in this way? (in context would be > > better than more designed examples). I have a feeling that it is really > > seldom, if ever, used. > > Perhaps one of the experienced Lojbanists on this list can offer a > concise phrase meaning "absolutely all, with no exceptions whatsoever", > so that anyone who wanted to be so emphatic could say {lo ... broda} or > {lo broda be ...} instead of {lo ro broda}, and the meaning of {ro} > could remain stable. I agree that it would be good if it was offered, and if it was sensible. I'd just like to point out that it was only a year ago that xorlo passed, so the concrete definition isn't all that stable. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.