From sentto-44114-3051-960931424-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Tue Jun 13 21:21:08 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 18783 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2000 21:21:07 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 21:21:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 6591 invoked by uid 40001); 13 Jun 2000 21:23:49 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 6588 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2000 21:23:47 -0000 Received: from hi.egroups.com (208.50.144.89) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 21:23:47 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-3051-960931424-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.36] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Jun 2000 21:23:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 23865 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2000 21:23:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Jun 2000 21:23:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.121) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 21:23:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 20680 invoked by uid 0); 13 Jun 2000 21:23:43 -0000 Message-ID: <20000613212343.20679.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.49.74.2 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:23:43 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@egroups.com From: "Jorge Llambias" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:23:43 PDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: lujvo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From: Robin Lee Powell > > lo LE the really is > veridical descriptor: the one(s) that really > is(are) ... > >The implication is that the speaker is insisting that such a thing >really is. That is what the speaker claims, but why would a claim that the speaker makes and that you don't believe offend you? Only because it is about some god, I suppose. Or are you offended by any claim with which you disagree? >Note that the specific vector of offense for me would be if someone used >a generic expression like that ("one or more mothers of one or more >gods") to refer specifically to Christianity and its mythology. But that would be a grammatical mistake, {lo} is not used for specific reference. It would offend my sense of the language too, but not for religious reasons. >The >all-too-common assumption by Christians that their religion is the only >relevant one pisses me off. Me too, not just Christians, but majorities in general. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Would you like to save big on your phone bill -- and keep on saving more each month? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you Long Distance rates which fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls! http://click.egroups.com/1/2567/3/_/17627/_/960931395/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com