From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Sep 08 12:47:03 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:47:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml6ec-0005O7-BA for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:47:03 -0700 Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.78.145]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml6eV-0005Md-BS for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:47:02 -0700 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 3so1107571eyh.36 for ; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:46:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=jDgOC7nQGuvUx3CDV3yQQM+R+xCJfOY9jXvCNEZWPhQ=; b=ZIbINAMqnrgo7jKUy2td9kHSXI2OU3Q6WEMmxcmw0X5A41l7KSt0Y5C3sBx/h6yGPJ ei9iyiI1YAqOd8q1lu92ZxyjdNhcTL387JD7gKwysJeZQsoWd2qHCYWcK/sw1N/xc6kl gQubfs4N20pL723DWlL4tRoSCAdHMS8R8/i24= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=xXUISOWNT9TjN8UAvifoLBUvWClRZPX2ietTGu9FZQKhNUo0zMPgETK9sc17vBb1UQ nbvy1wpS5UnQUGfZH+TR+3h3Nvzs/3RZU5F7RGFjhP7JWg3LD44M6hiRwg2Xo0/8VG8/ jTZXW4DyZESpEv8KbdCru6LfBIXTx4tnMxGvo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.211.142.11 with SMTP id u11mr18226000ebn.8.1252439213653; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:46:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <925d17560909080615r662b6fd5h376e2d330671e32f@mail.gmail.com> References: <9ada8ecd0909051425t78a046f3kddef2869e5c8e7a2@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560909060746n223ad9c7ic88894c3513a6ea1@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909061401n35c37197j6ff4fac5b267fc5e@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909061426r95b84efu76464f7327430f6c@mail.gmail.com> <395902.46727.qm@web50406.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <9ada8ecd0909061448p2eaa92ep19569f2b66793b76@mail.gmail.com> <386480.83513.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <9ada8ecd0909071709s5181e5d4r8e7803ac95581ad3@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560909080615r662b6fd5h376e2d330671e32f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 22:46:53 +0300 Message-ID: <9ada8ecd0909081246o4780578fv89cffb0bc817fb18@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo From: Squark Rabinovich To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502b03c6ebfca0473163a8e X-archive-position: 16110 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: top.squark@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --00504502b03c6ebfca0473163a8e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2009/9/8 Jorge Llamb=EDas > We do have many names for "lo", it is a word, it is a cmavo, it is a > gadri, etc, it is not a bunch. The issue of new entities comes about > when discussing what "lo jubme" for example refers to. My answer is > that it refers to tables, not to bunches or to a bunch. To refer to > bunches there are better words, such as "lo gunma", "lo girzu", "lo > selcmi", etc. Saying that "lo jubme" is "a bunch of tables", or > anything else besides "tables", only invites confusion, in my opinion I fail to see almost any difference between "tables" and "a bunch of tables". Perhaps the only difference is that "bunch" contains a stronger implication of something uniting the tables together. In order to remove an= y doubts, lets call it a "plurality of tables". Fellows, I'm afraid we are totally lost here, as far as xorlo is concerned. Where are the authority people? Where is xorxe himself? --00504502b03c6ebfca0473163a8e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2009/9/8 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.c= om>
We do have many names for "lo", it is a word, i= t is a cmavo, it is a
gadri, etc, it is not a bunch. The issue of new entities comes about
when discussing what "lo jubme" for example refers to. My answer = is
that it refers to tables, not to bunches or to a bunch. To refer to
bunches there are better words, such as "lo gunma", "lo girz= u", "lo
selcmi", etc. Saying that "lo jubme" is "a bunch of tab= les", or
anything else besides "tables", only invites confusion, in my opi= nion

I fail to see almost any difference be= tween "tables" and "a bunch of tables". Perhaps the onl= y difference is that "bunch" contains a stronger implication of s= omething uniting the tables together. In order to remove any doubts, lets c= all it a "plurality of tables".

Fellows, I'm afraid we are totally lost here, as fa= r as xorlo is concerned. Where are the authority people? Where is xorxe him= self?


--00504502b03c6ebfca0473163a8e-- 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.