From lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhDh2crnBBoELsfslQ@googlegroups.com Sun Nov 28 11:26:43 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PMmtR-0003yF-1p; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:26:42 -0800 Received: by yxn35 with SMTP id 35sf3278585yxn.16 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:26:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=3Tr9MycmWRhnq/b12kHQujyDRQ/vLwwTHluQvU9e8qA=; b=EDEiTiz2aCyvD5lU612tGMMoipZhNqO1TRjZv8DmAmp77qFhFvxdEdp7EQswsbs4ii JaxEIkuzcsRGCfRfhv37zWTJxRKwq4s7BlJDtpz05t5EnQyqTsLZIHOB6/4YUOlvnW7B CcZ4nq6sFT+VvBT+4S+b+RtXV01X7brptJTyg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=sjtSaZUSTeV+kaMC+GzeeEsa/1H5PWvr6EhGwG6rnByCr36WrsHtAVdA8Nw8E/t8bZ kaCgPby2GbSLwcvwEYEzqMDz/efHn1pMh3i6T5KZh4reMWKKV43Oi0wIIfz4UrNz5sF4 x8nLBC2i/JT9yn1KIvt5jppvCpzELTNLZYCHo= Received: by 10.91.42.20 with SMTP id u20mr382506agj.10.1290972385201; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:26:25 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.76.165 with SMTP id c37ls1656024ibk.3.p; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:26:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.79.82 with SMTP id o18mr1208326ibk.15.1290972384547; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:26:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.79.82 with SMTP id o18mr1208325ibk.15.1290972384495; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:26:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iw0-f177.google.com (mail-iw0-f177.google.com [209.85.214.177]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id j25si1668770ibb.0.2010.11.28.11.26.23; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:26:23 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.177; Received: by iwn36 with SMTP id 36so3208443iwn.8 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:26:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.16.205 with SMTP id p13mr4488005iba.108.1290972382789; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:26:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.207.65 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:26:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <822423.65423.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <659354.26852.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <604115.16202.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <752705.36302.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <822423.65423.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:26:22 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.177 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0003255759f64a80c6049621ee83 --0003255759f64a80c6049621ee83 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 No it doesn't. "pei - CAI - emotion ? - attitudinal: attitudinal question; how do you feel about it? with what intensity?" It "says" "How much happiness do YOU express?" {pei} by itself would be asking about emotion in general, and can be answered by, for examples, {.iinai}, {.aucu'i}, {.o'icai}, etc., whereas {.uipei} is asking about happiness specifically, anything on the .ui scale is a sensical answer, but only that which lies on the .ui scale. On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:52 AM, John E Clifford wrote: > But it "says" (not really) "How much happiness do I express?" You are > saying that this is an idiom, an expression totally detached from its base > meanin in an illogical way and tucked into the grammar (and semantics and > pragmatics) of the logical language. Nice to have a short expression for > that, I suppose, since we have others for other conventional greetings (and > in that case, the 'paunai' is definitely called for). But wouldn't just > 'pei' do as well -- or better -- and be shorter, too? > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Jonathan Jones > *To:* lojban@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Sun, November 28, 2010 12:40:13 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui > conversation > > It is my understanding that {.uipei} is "How happy are you?", in other > words, it is asking the listener where on the .ui scale the listener is. > > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, John E Clifford wrote: > >> Ah! So 'uipei' is a version of 'uicai' to 'uinai', not a separate speech >> act. I was reading your phrase as three, not two. But whose 'ui' is it? >> The fact that it is an expression seems to mean it is the speaker's. The >> fact that the speakers asks about its intensity seems to require that it is >> not , even if the question is rhetorical. If it were an expression of the >> listener's emotions (which it cannot be, by definition), then the complete >> complex speech act of asking a rhetorical question would indeed imply >> something what your sentence says (reading it generously) or perhaps that I >> don't really >> care about your feelings at all. But I see no reason to think it actually >> works that way nor that, even if it did, it would imply your putative >> sentence. The problem with the sentence is just the root problem of this >> whole issue, the use of 'ui' as a noun (in this case; it was a verb >> elsewhere). It is an exclamation, so "feeling ui" is like "feeling >> huzzah". If it makes any sense at all, it means something like "feels like >> wanting to say 'ui'" or so. But it is a totally opaque way of saying that >> and Logjam (the logical language, before all) is meant to be transparent (at >> least to the extent of having its opacities clarifiable by following a few, >> mainly logical, rules). So, this expression is not and should not be a part >> of Lojban. >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Luke Bergen >> *To:* lojban@googlegroups.com >> *Sent:* Sun, November 28, 2010 9:58:56 AM >> >> *Subject:* Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui >> conversation >> >> It means exactly what it looks like. Pei asks the receiver how much or if >> at all they are feeling the .ui and then the paunai says "but that wasn't a >> question". In other words, I would read it as an exclamation of "I know to >> what extent or whether or not you are feeling .ui". In other words, a cheap >> way of expressing .ui for them, or rather expressing that I know the extent >> to which they could accuratly express .ui (be it cai, cu'i or nai) >> On Nov 28, 2010 10:41 AM, "John E Clifford" wrote: >> > Still not clear what the point of 'uipeipaunai' is in all this. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: Luke Bergen >> > To: lojban@googlegroups.com >> > Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 9:34:39 AM >> > Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui >> conversation >> > >> > >> > Ok, I see where you're going. So "oooo, that looked like it hurt" might >> become >> > something like ".uu ta simlu lo ka cortu". I suppose. It's just >> unfortunate >> > that there's this rich exclamation system that I can only use to >> indicate my own >> > emotional state. But I guess it makes sense and I should stop trying to >> > shoehorn .ui and friends into shortcuts for bridi that involve do.... or >> just >> > say .uipeipaunai =p >> > On Nov 28, 2010 10:01 AM, "Craig Daniel" >> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Luke Bergen >> wrote: >> >>> So long as empathy doesn't require that I feel the actual emotion >> myself, >> >>> I'm fine with that. I don't want to say .oidai and accidentally imply >> that >> >>> I .oi >> >> >> >> I always understood it as expressing empathy with the perceived oi, >> >> which can't possibly mean you feel oinai. There is absolutely a >> >> difference between recognizing pain in somebody else and empathizing >> >> with it! >> >> >> >> I'm sorta with JEC on this one, in that UI should be expressing your >> >> emotion, but if da'oi is really just about expressing your empathy >> >> with a specified person then it makes total sense to me. Some >> >> da'oi-advocates seem to indicate that this is what it is - something >> >> semantically equivalent to a way to specify the referent of dai >> >> (although syntactically quite distinct); that seems useful. (Although >> >> if it's in COI, doesn't it have the side effect of resetting the >> >> referent of "do"?) Some seem to want it to mean "I believe so-and-so >> >> feels the emotion indicated by saying whatever attitudinal (or, >> >> apparently from some example sentences, string of attitudinals - >> >> something dai cannot modify, because I can uedai after oiing or after >> >> oidaiing*) and am not saying anything at all about my own emotional >> >> state." In this case, you are stating apparent facts about the world, >> >> not expressing your own feelings; statements of fact or belief like >> >> that are what bridi are *for.* I'm against any experimental cmavo >> >> whose advocates can't agree on what it means, because that kind of >> >> imprecision is incompatible with what the non-experimental parts of >> >> the language strive to be (although they have sometimes been every bit >> >> as murky in their own way), so you can put me in the anti-da'oi bin >> >> until you guys make up your mind. >> >> >> >> The notion that saying "no, da'oi shouldn't work like that even though >> >> nothing else does" is telling you that there's no good way to say >> >> "ooh, that must have hurt" in Lojban is just silly, because nobody but >> >> you seems resistant to using the vast majority of the grammar in the >> >> way it was intended - the "ooh" is an English UIesque interjection >> >> about the *speaker's* emotion, and the rest of the sentence is a >> >> declarative sentence and really ought to be translated as one. The >> >> emotional gismu were created for a reason. >> >> >> >> That said (tangent warning!), I think there's quite a difference >> >> between zo'o and u'idai. The "surprise!" of an unexpected party is >> >> much more akin to the former, and is not empathizing with anything at >> >> all. It is not a perceived emotion, but an intended one. If it is to >> >> be expressed with a UI at all, and I'm not sure it needs to be, it's >> >> definitely not one modified with dai (or da'oi, if that's a >> >> specified-referent dai relative). >> >> >> >> Now, I can see the value of a possible experimental dai-alike for >> >> intended emotions, such that u'iblah and zo'o are synonymous, and >> >> ueblah conveys something like "this is said/done with the intent that >> >> it will be surprising!" But such a hypothetical cmavo is not and >> >> should not be confused with dai. If da'oi is a semantically dai-like >> >> cmavo, then this hypothetical would probably quickly get a >> >> corresponding experimental COI. And I'm not sure the dai-for-intent >> >> cmavo is even remotely necessary - one could just as easily say "spaji >> >> .ai" in the three syllables needed for any experimental cmavo not >> >> starting with x, and use the observative "spaji" instead of "spaji >> >> da'oi." >> >> >> >> - mi'e .kreig. >> >> >> >> * John: by "oiing" in this context I mean "expressing pain through >> >> the use of zo oi" rather than "feeling pain"; it's an English >> >> shorthand for "cusku lu .oi li'u" rather than for "cortu." >> >> >> >> -- >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups >> >>"lojban" group. >> >> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> >>lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> . >> >> For more options, visit this group at >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups >> > "lojban" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> . >> > For more options, visit this group at >> > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "lojban" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> . >> > For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. >> > >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "lojban" group. >> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "lojban" group. >> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > mu'o mi'e .aionys. > > .i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu > do zo'o > (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > -- mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --0003255759f64a80c6049621ee83 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable No it doesn't.

"pei - CAI - emotion ? - attitudinal: attitu= dinal question; how do you feel about it? with what intensity?"
It "says" "How much happiness do YOU express?"

{pei} by itself would be asking about emotion in general, and can be answer= ed by, for examples, {.iinai}, {.aucu'i}, {.o'icai}, etc., whereas = {.uipei} is asking about happiness specifically, anything on the .ui scale = is a sensical answer, but only that which lies on the .ui scale.


On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:52 AM, John E= Clifford <kal= i9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
But it "says" (not really) "How much happi= ness do I express?"=A0 You are saying that this is an idiom, an expres= sion totally detached from its base meanin in an illogical way and tucked i= nto the grammar (and semantics and pragmatics) of the logical language.=A0 = Nice to have a short expression for that, I suppose, since we have others f= or other conventional greetings (and in that case, the 'paunai' is = definitely called for).=A0 But wouldn't just 'pei' do as well -= - or better -- and be shorter, too?

<= b>From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.c= om>
To: lojban@googlegroups.c= om
Sent: Sun, November 28, 20= 10 12:40:13 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other= -centric-.ui conversation

It is my understanding that {.uipei} is "How happy are you?", in = other words, it is asking the listener where on the .ui scale the listener = is.

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Joh= n E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrot= e:
Ah! So 'uipei' is a version of 'uicai' to 'uinai', = not a separate speech act.=A0 I was reading your phrase as three, not two.= =A0 But whose 'ui' is it?=A0 The fact that it is an expression seem= s to mean it is the speaker's.=A0 The fact that the speakers asks about= its intensity seems to require that it is not , even if the question is rh= etorical.=A0 If it were an expression of the listener's emotions (which= it cannot be, by definition), then the complete complex speech act of aski= ng a rhetorical question would indeed imply something what your sentence sa= ys (reading it generously) or perhaps that I don't really
care about your feelings at all.=A0 But I see no reason to think it actuall= y works that way nor that, even if it did, it would imply your putative sen= tence.=A0 The problem with the sentence is just the root problem of this whole issue, th= e use of 'ui' as a noun (in this case; it was a verb elsewhere).=A0= It is an exclamation, so "feeling ui" is like "feeling huzz= ah".=A0 If it makes any sense at all, it means something like "fe= els like wanting to say 'ui'" or so.=A0 But it is a totally op= aque way of saying that and Logjam (the logical language, before all) is me= ant to be transparent (at least to the extent of having its opacities clari= fiable by following a few, mainly logical, rules).=A0 So, this expression i= s not and should not be a part of Lojban.

Sent: Sun, November = 28, 2010 9:58:56 AM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric= -.ui conversation

It means exactly what it looks like.=A0 Pei asks the receiver how much o= r if at all they are feeling the .ui and then the paunai says "but tha= t wasn't a question".=A0 In other words, I would read it as an exc= lamation of "I know to what extent or whether or not you are feeling .= ui".=A0 In other words, a cheap way of expressing .ui for them, or rat= her expressing that I know the extent to which they could accuratly express= .ui (be it cai, cu'i or nai)

On Nov 28, 2010 10:41 AM, "John E Clifford&= quot; <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Still not clear wha= t the point of 'uipeipaunai' is in all this.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________> From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
> To: = lojban@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 9:34:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] = Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation
>
>
&= gt; Ok, I see where you're going. So "oooo, that looked like it h= urt" might become
> something like ".uu ta simlu lo ka cortu". I suppose. It&#= 39;s just unfortunate
> that there's this rich exclamation syste= m that I can only use to indicate my own
> emotional state. But I g= uess it makes sense and I should stop trying to
> shoehorn .ui and friends into shortcuts for bridi that involve do.... = or just
> say .uipeipaunai =3Dp
> On Nov 28, 2010 10:01 AM, &q= uot;Craig Daniel" <craigbdaniel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gma= il.com> wrote:
>>> So long as empathy doesn't requir= e that I feel the actual emotion myself,
>>> I'm fine with that. I don't want to say .oidai and ac= cidentally imply that
>>> I .oi
>>
>> I alwa= ys understood it as expressing empathy with the perceived oi,
>> w= hich can't possibly mean you feel oinai. There is absolutely a
>> difference between recognizing pain in somebody else and empathizi= ng
>> with it!
>>
>> I'm sorta with JEC on = this one, in that UI should be expressing your
>> emotion, but if = da'oi is really just about expressing your empathy
>> with a specified person then it makes total sense to me. Some
&= gt;> da'oi-advocates seem to indicate that this is what it is - some= thing
>> semantically equivalent to a way to specify the referent = of dai
>> (although syntactically quite distinct); that seems useful. (Altho= ugh
>> if it's in COI, doesn't it have the side effect of = resetting the
>> referent of "do"?) Some seem to want it= to mean "I believe so-and-so
>> feels the emotion indicated by saying whatever attitudinal (or,>> apparently from some example sentences, string of attitudinals -<= br>>> something dai cannot modify, because I can uedai after oiing or= after
>> oidaiing*) and am not saying anything at all about my own emotiona= l
>> state." In this case, you are stating apparent facts abo= ut the world,
>> not expressing your own feelings; statements of f= act or belief like
>> that are what bridi are *for.* I'm against any experimental cm= avo
>> whose advocates can't agree on what it means, because t= hat kind of
>> imprecision is incompatible with what the non-exper= imental parts of
>> the language strive to be (although they have sometimes been every= bit
>> as murky in their own way), so you can put me in the anti-= da'oi bin
>> until you guys make up your mind.
>> >> The notion that saying "no, da'oi shouldn't work like= that even though
>> nothing else does" is telling you that t= here's no good way to say
>> "ooh, that must have hurt&qu= ot; in Lojban is just silly, because nobody but
>> you seems resistant to using the vast majority of the grammar in t= he
>> way it was intended - the "ooh" is an English UIes= que interjection
>> about the *speaker's* emotion, and the res= t of the sentence is a
>> declarative sentence and really ought to be translated as one. The=
>> emotional gismu were created for a reason.
>>
>= ;> That said (tangent warning!), I think there's quite a difference<= br> >> between zo'o and u'idai. The "surprise!" of an u= nexpected party is
>> much more akin to the former, and is not emp= athizing with anything at
>> all. It is not a perceived emotion, b= ut an intended one. If it is to
>> be expressed with a UI at all, and I'm not sure it needs to be= , it's
>> definitely not one modified with dai (or da'oi, = if that's a
>> specified-referent dai relative).
>> <= br> >> Now, I can see the value of a possible experimental dai-alike for<= br>>> intended emotions, such that u'iblah and zo'o are synon= ymous, and
>> ueblah conveys something like "this is said/don= e with the intent that
>> it will be surprising!" But such a hypothetical cmavo is not = and
>> should not be confused with dai. If da'oi is a semantic= ally dai-like
>> cmavo, then this hypothetical would probably quic= kly get a
>> corresponding experimental COI. And I'm not sure the dai-for-i= ntent
>> cmavo is even remotely necessary - one could just as easi= ly say "spaji
>> .ai" in the three syllables needed for = any experimental cmavo not
>> starting with x, and use the observative "spaji" instead= of "spaji
>> da'oi."
>>
>> - mi= 'e .kreig.
>>
>> * John: by "oiing" in th= is context I mean "expressing pain through
>> the use of zo oi" rather than "feeling pain"; it= 9;s an English
>> shorthand for "cusku lu .oi li'u" = rather than for "cortu."
>>
>> --
>>= You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups =
>>"lojban" group.
>> To post to this group, send e= mail to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from th= is group, send email to
>>lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>>htt= p://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>> <= br> >
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to= lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, se= nd email to
> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http:= //groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>
>
> >
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to = lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+= unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this grou= p at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.=
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.



--
mu'o mi= 'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be = denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I= am your father. :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.



--
mu'o mi= 'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be = denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I= am your father. :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--0003255759f64a80c6049621ee83--