From lojban+bncCIycn8S8DhCW0ILpBBoEWyl7GA@googlegroups.com Sun Jan 02 08:30:33 2011 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PZQp8-0002VC-Md; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:30:32 -0800 Received: by vws1 with SMTP id 1sf7290072vws.16 for ; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:30:19 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EqLtCZg+EefdQtLakQjGSemTMzAoiIsBggcdWXWedyw=; b=tzk579HJkbXdgV+iTocuDsv3IIyv2fCgcObixgd/EUzcXxoDpmjFncBTrXnrSFcoCK XtNLcfnYKB2ZpH+o2trejyiBnlAAPf26ZpAaxo6r6vYaZLOD3S/flVXBcolo5SYmi34j iZc2Rpqfz2jUJTK3oAHQxu21i9Kq2WfdCT8lU= 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:content-transfer-encoding; b=S/u23neC7Y8IkmPgcBilypElSxDxwGmaH+ris6SjUXM8OOa2GsgKb/2o8RmbKbaWbC aFn2UsDyNvk/wJzqbaaeS0JcwVpyJeUx+LajVLV+fLx8dLKk08zxmCz4v5J54yySn9ry oDJpZ4zQIqd9+ifV4ovX3snIjgBOY/3ObXCsg= Received: by 10.220.186.69 with SMTP id cr5mr777489vcb.28.1293985814883; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:30:14 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.109.143 with SMTP id j15ls273467vcp.1.p; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:30:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.179.65 with SMTP id bp1mr3793634vcb.13.1293985814086; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:30:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.179.65 with SMTP id bp1mr3793630vcb.13.1293985812455; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:30:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com (mail-qy0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fj11si1171879vcb.0.2011.01.02.08.30.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:30:11 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.182; Received: by mail-qy0-f182.google.com with SMTP id 36so13573421qyk.20 for ; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:30:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.95.81 with SMTP id c17mr16851784qcn.99.1293985811299; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:30:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.213.204 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Jan 2011 08:30:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1fc8bfcd-a485-4cc8-af89-1f0b152c1058@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> References: <201012301717.31348.phma@phma.optus.nu> <1fc8bfcd-a485-4cc8-af89-1f0b152c1058@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 11:30:11 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: GIhA question From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: mturniansky@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.182 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mturniansky@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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, I did receive this three times... My response below. On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:26 AM, slobin wrote: > Seems like gmail have troubles delivering my post to the list.Trying > to repost this by google groups web interface. Sorry if you are > reading this second or third time. > > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Michael Turniansky > wrote: > >> =A0Also, if you DID want to have same unspecified-but-obvious object >> that you both talked to and ate, you could say "mi tavla gi'e citka >> vau zo'e" > > After a cup of tea: I think now that you are wrong. {mi tavla gi'e > citka vau da} is equal to {mi tavla da gi'e citka da}, where {da} IS a > shared object. {mi tavla gi'e citka vau zo'e} is equal to {mi tavla > zo'e gi'e citka zo'e}, where {zo'e} IS NOT a shared object. > > Unless you agree with this, you must state that either (1) adding an > elidable terminator {vau} changes a meaning of sentence, or (2) using > {zo'e} has a different meaning that an absent argument. Both seems not > plausible for me. > I am asserting number 2. zo'e is implicitly placed where an empty argument appears, but that doesn't mean that it is the SAME as an empty argument. For if it were, I could claim that when I say "mi klama le zarci" I am actually asserting "mi klama fo le zarci", and I simply elided the zo'e's in "mi klama zo'e zo'e le zarci" Patently false. > For the second possibility: consider me wanting to share the third > argument, not the second. I've always believed that {mi tavla zo'e da} > and {mi tavla fi da} are equivalent, and therefore {mi tavla gi'e > pinxe vau zo'e da} and {mi tavla gi'e pinxe vau fi da} are equivalent > too. Yes, I agree with all of that. And furthermore, they are both (I assert) equivalent to mi tavla zo'e gi'e pinxe zo'e vau da. I don't see where you have seen me asserting anything different than that. > > BTW, this (unlike talking to things eaten) has really happen with me > during today New Year party! ;-) > --gejyspa --=20 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.