Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI,@SEARN.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0ovg48-0000PNC; Sat, 6 Nov 93 07:20 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 2483; Sat, 06 Nov 93 07:20:15 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2482; Sat, 6 Nov 1993 07:20:15 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7965; Sat, 6 Nov 1993 06:19:29 +0100 Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 00:16:37 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: re'enai X-To: C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 457 Lines: 11 I think I disagree on this. We want to choose scales that are most useful. My envisioning of re'enai is a situation where someone says a remark calculated to violate standard religious atmosphere/connotatyions/conventions. I do not mean "sacrilege" as an accusation of someone elses sacrilege. How about Galileo's "It still moves re'enai"? non-spirittual would be re'ecu'i to me - something that simpoly does not register on the rleigious scale. lojbab