From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Jan 03 07:41:37 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 70949 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2007 15:34:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2007 15:34:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net) (69.17.117.4) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jan 2007 15:34:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 28626 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2007 15:32:30 -0000 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) (envelope-sender ) by mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 3 Jan 2007 15:32:30 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H286N-0001gq-Lo for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:32:28 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H285s-0001eE-UL; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:32:03 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:31:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2851-0001cB-Bb for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:31:03 -0800 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.244]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H284u-0001bQ-1u for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:31:03 -0800 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b8so1549664ana for ; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:30:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.144.11 with SMTP id r11mr6736076and.1167838254840; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:30:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from thebee ( [66.227.87.65]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c4sm25699139anc.2007.01.03.07.30.53; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:30:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:30:52 -0700 Message-ID: <002401c72f4c$2837e440$6601a8c0@hq.squarei.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <925d17560701030655ia74c764x43fa0448381c7a3f@mail.gmail.com> Thread-Index: AccvR8sZ5uGTboIlQyau39pKHRXbUQAAmjGQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: -2.4 X-Spam-Score-Int: -23 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 13473 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matthew.dunlap@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.4 X-Spam-Score-Int: -23 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: > What would a robot bomber do? It would run a checksum against the digitally transmitted orders, notice any interference, and request to have the orders resent. ;) As for ke'u I think it can be used that way, but I don't think the ke'unai is elidable because there would be no other way to know how much was meant to be the repetition (if the repetition was meant to help against potentially spotty transmitions). [...] Content analysis details: (-2.4 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] 0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 69.17.117.4 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "M@" From: "M@" Reply-To: matthew.dunlap@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Military language X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=V5wTQVughTPetuHDjBANAubwQvhdJkdVRtYl6s0LT430dR-DAQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 27913 > What would a robot bomber do? It would run a checksum against the digitally transmitted orders, notice any interference, and request to have the orders resent. ;) As for ke'u I think it can be used that way, but I don't think the ke'unai is elidable because there would be no other way to know how much was meant to be the repetition (if the repetition was meant to help against potentially spotty transmitions). "NOT REPEAT NOT" is reasonable (I really don't know if its in real-world use), but it seems to me that a cleaner solution would be to just use different words. If you wanted someone to not repeat not bomb the pretty little girls school you could instead say, ignore the pretty little girls school. Can anyone think of a situation where 'not' is actually required? --M@ 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.