From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Jun 03 13:53:41 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 25326 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2006 20:53:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.34) by m27.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Jun 2006 20:53:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2006 20:53:39 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fmd7f-0007ET-7O for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:53:27 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fmd5p-0007Dd-Hn; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:51:36 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fmd5N-0007DU-Qo for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:51:05 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.236]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fmd5I-0007DD-Tb for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:51:05 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i7so757733wra for ; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.142.19 with SMTP id p19mr2623603qbd; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.237.19 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 13:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560606031350m4d5efdd9ve0b9a2bd74343376@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 17:50:59 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20060603180250.16796.qmail@web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560606031004w32e6030bmdfa696123a99ed2e@mail.gmail.com> <20060603180250.16796.qmail@web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11717 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:3:4:0 X-eGroups-From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" Reply-To: jjllambias@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=PSVm68pfCYM5cl76wtOGMHHpEOj_3rTqrxQamWtoGQeNkkdJBg X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26137 On 6/3/06, John E Clifford wrote: > As you may recall, my suggestion mirrors the > English for "individually" and "collectively" (or > "together"), attaching as convenient to sumti or > predicate place (so, I suppose that UI is about > the only selmaho that will work -- unless we > invent a new one). In English those adverbs normally indicate how the predicate applies to the subject. For example: The men carried the pianos together. would normally mean that each piano was carried by all the men, not that each man carried all the pianos at once. Is that what you have in mind, that when the predicate is tagged, it indicates how it applies to the x1? > The point of using {lu'o} and > the like is that they would have no use in the > mildly revised system and so could be used for > something else -- in this case something related, > even. There has been resistance to changing utterly useless words, so I don't expect a proposal to change something not totally useless like {lu'o} to succeed. I wouldn't especially oppose it, but I know others would. > I think this would have a minimal effect > on old text, since 1) {lu'o} and the like have > scarcely ever been used and 2) the old forms are > legitmate under the new dispensation and have the > same meaning (or what now corresponds to the old > meaning). These last two claims are > impressionistic, so correct them if they are > wrong. {lu'o} has seen some use, I don't know about "scarcely", it is hard to quantify. Some cmavo I would be pretty sure have seen no use, but I don't think {lu'o} is one of them. If it's moved to UI, then the old forms would change rather drastically because UIs attach to the preceding word and {lu'o} applies to the sumti that follows. That could be partly solved by putting it in BAhE instead of in UI, but the scope would still be wrong, because {lu'o} can take any number of connected sumti, whereas BAhE only takes the immediately following word. mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.