From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Jan 03 07:39:04 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 62799 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2007 15:27:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.33) by m40.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2007 15:27:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net) (69.17.117.5) by mta7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jan 2007 15:27:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 12965 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2007 15:26:09 -0000 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) (envelope-sender ) by mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 3 Jan 2007 15:26:09 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H280E-0001PX-SF for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:26:07 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H27zO-0001Lh-8I; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:25:25 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:24:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H27yQ-0001Kg-HF for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:24:14 -0800 Received: from anno.name ([81.169.186.62] helo=mail.anno.name ident=postfix) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H27yM-0001KZ-IO for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:24:14 -0800 Received: from [192.168.1.146] (p5085CB71.dip.t-dialin.net [80.133.203.113]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.anno.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A9C6AC10 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:24:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <459BCA7D.7070902@perpetuum-immobile.de> Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:23:41 +0100 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061222) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000c01c72ee9$d72544b0$6601a8c0@hq.squarei.net> <459BC0B2.3090803@ropine.com> <925d17560701030655ia74c764x43fa0448381c7a3f@mail.gmail.com> <459BC8F6.7010009@perpetuum-immobile.de> In-Reply-To: <459BC8F6.7010009@perpetuum-immobile.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.0 OpenPGP: id=21E90840 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig6F8471538957C25A1EDA8C74" X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Score-Int: -25 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 13472 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: timonator@perpetuum-immobile.de X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Score-Int: -25 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "chain.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Timo Paulssen wrote: > i think two {na} refering to the same work like one (ie the second one > overrides the first one) whoops, the CLL (chapter 15) says otherwise: The grammar of ``na'' allows multiple adjacent negations, which cancel out, as in normal logic: [...] Content analysis details: (-2.6 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 69.17.117.5 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: Timo Paulssen From: Timo Paulssen Reply-To: timonator@perpetuum-immobile.de Subject: [lojban] Re: Military language X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=MuV9BScIoLUrCP8l0GG-1flXg_cX-u0Qmp9n9f8uwtDfpTBS7g X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 27912 --------------enig6F8471538957C25A1EDA8C74 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Timo Paulssen wrote: > i think two {na} refering to the same work like one (ie the second one > overrides the first one) whoops, the CLL (chapter 15) says otherwise: The grammar of ``na'' allows multiple adjacent negations, which cancel out, as in normal logic: 2.11) ti na na barda prenu co melbi mi This [false] [false] is-a-big person that is (beautiful to me). which is the same as: 2.12) ti barda prenu co melbi mi This is a big-person that is (beautiful to me). --------------enig6F8471538957C25A1EDA8C74 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" [Attachment content not displayed.] --------------enig6F8471538957C25A1EDA8C74--