From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBCw3vvtBBoEzGV0Ug@googlegroups.com Mon May 02 10:52:02 2011 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QGxHm-0001X2-RD; Mon, 02 May 2011 10:52:01 -0700 Received: by wya21 with SMTP id 21sf10293731wya.16 for ; Mon, 02 May 2011 10:51:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=ilP0BebQz1HSISGoukCcEHf8X6FB+VE3C6pObIlS0fE=; b=jlc4V1lYKvHQVFCkKh6X3FFR02PAFzpS+2A6KUhbRxtE8mIEWklucsJIqbxjpZotNC YBJbX4T3rKadTjQXOayZwjI/pVvyvKs9mFh+bygQxfRC3Bn5VbG2fmDWVJE50BXzz34E jFvx8MaAbjvgVHq9wKthyahkXG0/irmMXQQSg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=tQwUgYVNmXUClfiEeW75AYxTv3m2jgiNoqvQq67ztNW91LXmx4FgaCEv/ZT33AHFer d2s/ZmndiZ6tv/lqFFAvstZFnko9Cqx0ErE+xLKhaarZ4LEE8OiyWlfTCsnsT/8KmlHv 0EEm1AU3a2I0tPqdpLHu+vu4SAeXcsFMiSU6U= Received: by 10.216.221.232 with SMTP id r82mr2512435wep.3.1304358704460; Mon, 02 May 2011 10:51:44 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.14.7.210 with SMTP id 58ls437320eep.1.gmail; Mon, 02 May 2011 10:51:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.32.68 with SMTP id n44mr740175eea.7.1304358702916; Mon, 02 May 2011 10:51:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.32.68 with SMTP id n44mr740174eea.7.1304358702868; Mon, 02 May 2011 10:51:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f177.google.com (mail-ey0-f177.google.com [209.85.215.177]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l51si2018961eei.4.2011.05.02.10.51.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 02 May 2011 10:51:42 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.177; Received: by eyh6 with SMTP id 6so2055032eyh.36 for ; Mon, 02 May 2011 10:51:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.53.134 with SMTP id g6mr3176440eec.6.1304358702610; Mon, 02 May 2011 10:51:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.29.4 with HTTP; Mon, 2 May 2011 10:51:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <169940.81010.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <412353.33616.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <169940.81010.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> From: Luke Bergen Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 13:51:21 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and default quantifiers To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.177 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cdff82a20fa6e04a24ead3d --000e0cdff82a20fa6e04a24ead3d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable uhhh, ok. Simply speaking, I'm asking if the equivalence that xorxes claim= s of {lo gerku cu na blabi} -> {no gerku cu blabi} is more like the equivalence of {ko'a cu broda} -> {broda fa ko'a} OR {ko'a berti ko'e} -> {ko'e snanu ko'a}? i.e. are the statements the same as each other, or is i= t just happenstance that the meanings are roughly the same? On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 12:46 PM, John E Clifford wrot= e: > Are you a teacher? Your ability to confuse a simple situation is > profession-worthy. The short answer is "No". The two sentences do not > necessarily point to the same object -- a truth value, I suppose, or a > proposition or a state of affairs -- in either way. In the real world, > never mind alternate ones, they mean different things and so may have > different truth values and so on down the line (or up it, depending on yo= ur > ontologies). > I am not sure what z is here, but it does not much matter; I suppose the > point is that x and y have been assigned the same value but could, in the > course of the run,.come to have different ones, whereas whatever value is > assigned x is automatically assigned to z as well. The problem is that y= ou > two sentences are not even as alike as x and y, let alone x and z (which = I > would suppose is something like na-shifting, for example -- however that = is > working this year). > Let's begin by assuming that 'lo gerku' has the same referent(s) in both > sentences. So, the first sentence says that none of those referents is > while. The second says that those referents collectively are not white. > Except when there is only one referent, it is not perfectly clear what th= e > referents being (or not being) collectively white means. On one notion o= f > participation, this would simply make no sense, or, at least, would be > categorically false, and so the second sentence would be true, whether or > not the first was. On another, the truth of the first would compel the > truth of the second, but not conversely (this version amount to taking 'l= o > gerku cu blabi' as 'ro lo gerku cu blabi') On a third reading, the two > would be strictly equivalent, by na-shifting, essentially. And there are > other readings that fall in between. > Being a logical language doesn't mean all problem are solved; it merely > means the confusions are at a higher level (or deeper structure). > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Luke Bergen > *To:* lojban@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Mon, May 2, 2011 11:04:59 AM > *Subject:* Re: [lojban] xorlo and default quantifiers > > So, in programming terms: > x =3D "hello" > y =3D "hello" > z =3D x; > > Now, x and y are "equal" in the sense that they have the same "meaning". > But x and z are "equal" in a much more fundamental way. They are 2 > different pointers but they are pointing at the same object. > > In that sense, I am asking if {no lo gerku cu blabi} and {lo gerku cu na > blabi} are "equivalent" in the sense that "x" and "y" are. OR are they > "equal" in the sense that "x" and "z" are? > > The difference being, it is possible that in some universe "x" and "y" > could potentially be different (as in, maybe I just haven't thought of a = way > yet which they are different). While "x" and "z" are the exact same thin= g. > > > Another way to think of it is: I understand "equivalence" to mean "they > amount to the same thing" while "equality" is "one can be derived from th= e > other in a direct way so that it is logically impossible for the 2 things= to > differ" i.e. they share the same identity, they are just different > expressions of the same thing. > > Just because 2 things always MEAN the same thing, does that mean that the= y > ARE the same thing? > > broda cei lo gerku ku na blabi .i brode cei no lo gerku ku blabi .i xu lo > du'u broda cu mintu lo du'u brode .ixu lo du'u broda cu simsa lo du'u bro= de > kei roda .ixu lo du'u broda cu me lo du'u brode > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM, John E Clifford wr= ote: > >> If you do assume thatt lo nanmu cu bevri lo pipno has an implicit ro in >> front, you will misunderstand what it says. >> no is not a number like the others, being defined by a negation, though >> it does represent a digit. used on an argument, it affects the whole >> proposition (as does every quantifier), in this case by putting a negati= on >> somewhere in it. >> Incidentally, whether you take noun phrases as referring to objects or >> L-sets, no is not a permissible internal quantifier. >> The apple eating examples are not equivalent, since 'lo plise' in one ne= ed >> not have the same referent as 'plise' in the second. In the second 'pli= se' >> refers to all apples (in the domain), in the first 'lo plise' refers to >> apples which may be contextually specified (less than all). So the seco= nd >> imples the first but not conversely. (What do you mean by "are teh >> statements the same?" other than "do they mean the same thing" -- clearl= y >> they are different sentences.) >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Luke Bergen >> *To:* lojban@googlegroups.com >> *Sent:* Sun, May 1, 2011 11:04:56 PM >> >> *Subject:* Re: [lojban] xorlo and default quantifiers >> >> mmm, good points. I guess what I was getting at is, just because there >> are no default quantifiers doesn't mean that people are going to use con= text >> to assume them. (for example, you assume that {ro lo nanmu cu bevri lo >> pipno}) >> >> And also that seems weird. {no} is a number just like {pa}, {re}, {su'o= }, >> or {so'i}. It seems weird that using it as a quantifier of a sumti can >> directly effect the selbri in ways that other numbers can't. >> >> I understand intuitively why that is the case. But it still feels >> strange. I kind of have to wonder if {mi na citka lo plise} and {mi cit= ka >> no plise} really are identical (I know that the meanings of the statemen= ts >> are the same, but are the statements themselves the same as each other) >> >> 2011/5/1 Jorge Llamb=EDas >> >>> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Luke Bergen >>> wrote: >>> > So I was thinking about this earlier today and came to a realization. >>> If >>> > xorlo says that there are no default quantifiers for {lo} then wouldn= 't >>> {no} >>> > be a reasonable possibility for the assumed quantifier? >>> >>> No, there isn't an assumed quantifier either. >>> >>> > e.g. {mi citka lo plise}. {lo plise} has no outer quantifier (implic= it >>> or >>> > explicit), but I suspect that most people will pick up from context >>> that I >>> > in fact {citka pa lo su'opa plise} or something like it. >>> >>> It will depend on the context, but as an isolated sentence I would >>> translate it as "I eat apples". It doesn't even have to be about any >>> specific occasion. I suspect that "I eat exactly one of the at least >>> one apples" is not one of the most common interpretations. >>> >>> > Furthermore, if I >>> > said {mi nelci lo nu tcidu .i mi ponse lo cukta} I would think that >>> people >>> > would read that as something like {mi ponse so'o lo so'i cukta} or >>> something >>> > like it. >>> >>> I would read it as "I like reading. I own books." I don't think I >>> would read it as "I own several of many books". >>> >>> > So if context can change the assumptions that the tecusku makes about >>> the >>> > secusku, then couldn't one of those assumptions be {no lo cukta} sinc= e >>> there >>> > is no proscribed default? >>> >>> No, because "no" contains a negation. If you say "mi citka" you can't >>> expect people to understand that you mean "mi na citka". Similarly, if >>> you say "mi citka lo plise" you can't expect anyone to understand that >>> you mean "mi citka no lo plise". >>> >>> > Either the default quantifiers of {lo} should be {su'o} or it should = be >>> > reasonable to assume that {mi xebni lo nu tcidu .ija'ebo mi ponse lo >>> cukta} >>> > could be understood as {mi xebni lo nu tcidu .ija'ebo mi ponse no lo >>> cukta}. >>> >>> But "lo" has no quantifiers, default or otherwise. Why do you want to >>> force one on it? >>> >>> > In my mind the latter is an unsafe assumption and I suspect that mos= t >>> > tecusku would respond with something like {.ue do cusku lo du'u broda= do >>> na >>> > nelci lo nu tcidu .iku'i do ji'a cusku lo nu do ponse lo cukta .i va'= o >>> lo nu >>> > broda kei mi sruma lo nu na brode}. Therefore, I argue that even if >>> the >>> > grammar claims that {lo} has no default quantifiers, people read lojb= an >>> with >>> > the assumption that {lo}'s implicit quantifiers are {su'o}. >>> > Thoughts? >>> >>> I at least don't. >>> >>> Here is an example where "su'o" fails: >>> >>> lo ci nanmu ca'o bevri lo pipno. >>> "Three men are carrying a piano." >>> >>> It would not occur to me to conclude that at least one of the three >>> men is carrying a piano, my assumption would be that they are all >>> three doing it together. >>> >>> mu'o mi'e xorxes >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou= ps >>> "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=3Den. >>> >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s >> "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=3Den. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s >> "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=3Den. >> > > -- > 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=3Den. > > -- > 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=3Den. > --=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. --000e0cdff82a20fa6e04a24ead3d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable uhhh, ok. =A0Simply speaking, I'm asking if the=A0equivalence=A0that xo= rxes claims of {lo gerku cu na blabi} -> {no gerku cu blabi} is more lik= e the equivalence of {ko'a cu broda} -> {broda fa ko'a} OR {ko&#= 39;a berti ko'e} -> {ko'e snanu ko'a}? =A0i.e. are the state= ments the same as each other, or is it just happenstance that the meanings = are roughly the same?

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 12:46 PM, John E Clif= ford <kali9put= ra@yahoo.com> wrote:
Are you a teacher?=A0 Your ability to confuse a simple situation i= s profession-worthy.=A0 The short answer is "No".=A0 The two sent= ences do not necessarily point to the same object -- a truth value, I suppo= se, or a proposition or a state of affairs -- in either way.=A0 In the real= world, never mind alternate ones, they mean different things and so may ha= ve different truth values and so on down the line (or up it, depending on y= our ontologies).
I am not sure what z is here, but it does not much matter; I suppose the po= int is that x and y have been assigned the same value but could, in the cou= rse of the run,.come to have different ones, whereas whatever value is assi= gned x is automatically assigned to z as well.=A0 The problem is that you t= wo sentences are not even as alike as x and y, let alone x and z (which I would suppose is something like na-shifting,= for example -- however that is working this year).
Let's begin by a= ssuming that 'lo gerku' has the same referent(s) in both sentences.= =A0 So, the first sentence says that none of those referents is while.=A0 T= he second says that those referents collectively are not white.=A0 Except w= hen there is only one referent, it is not perfectly clear what the referent= s being (or not being) collectively white means.=A0 On one notion of partic= ipation, this would simply make no sense, or, at least, would be categorica= lly false, and so the second sentence would be true, whether or not the fir= st was.=A0 On another, the truth of the first would compel the truth of the= second, but not conversely (this version amount to taking 'lo gerku cu= blabi' as 'ro lo gerku cu blabi')=A0 On a third reading, the t= wo would be strictly equivalent, by na-shifting, essentially.=A0 And there are other readings that fall in between.=A0
Being a logical language d= oesn't mean all problem are solved; it merely means the confusions are = at a higher level (or deeper structure).


From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.co= m>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
<= b>Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 11:04:= 59 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo = and default quantifiers

So, in programming terms:
x =3D "hello"
y =3D "= ;hello"
z =3D x;

Now, x and y are &= quot;equal" in the sense that they have the same "meaning". = =A0But x and z are "equal" in a much more fundamental way. =A0The= y are 2 different pointers but they are pointing at the same object.

In that sense, I am asking if {no lo gerku cu blabi} an= d {lo gerku cu na blabi} are "equivalent" in the sense that "= ;x" and "y" are. =A0OR are they "equal" in the sen= se that "x" and "z" are?

The difference being, it is possible that in some unive= rse "x" and "y" could potentially be different (as in, = maybe I just haven't thought of a way yet which they are different). = =A0While "x" and "z" are the exact same thing. =A0

Another way to think of it is: I understand "equiv= alence" to mean "they amount to the same thing" while "= equality" is "one can be derived from the other in a direct way s= o that it is logically impossible for the 2 things to differ" i.e. the= y share the same identity, they are just different expressions of the same = thing.

Just because 2 things always MEAN the same thing, does = that mean that they ARE the same thing?

broda cei = lo gerku ku na blabi .i brode cei no lo gerku ku blabi .i xu lo du'u br= oda cu mintu lo du'u brode .ixu lo du'u broda cu simsa lo du'u = brode kei roda .ixu lo du'u broda cu me lo du'u brode

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM, J= ohn E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wr= ote:
If you do assume thatt lo nanmu cu bevri lo pipno has an i= mplicit ro in front, you will misunderstand what it says.
no is not a nu= mber=A0 like the others, being defined by a negation, though it does repres= ent a digit. used on an argument, it affects the whole proposition (as does= every quantifier), in this case by putting a negation somewhere in it.
Incidentally, whether you take noun phrases as referring to objects or L-se= ts, no is not a permissible internal quantifier.
The apple eating exampl= es are not equivalent, since 'lo plise' in one need not have the sa= me referent as 'plise' in the second.=A0 In the second 'plise&#= 39; refers to all apples (in the domain), in the first 'lo plise' r= efers to apples which may be contextually specified (less than all).=A0 So = the second imples the first but not conversely.=A0 (What do you mean by "are teh statem= ents the same?" other than "do they mean the same thing" -- = clearly they are different sentences.)

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.c= om>
To: lojban@googlegroups.c= om
Sent: Sun, May 1, = 2011 11:04:56 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] xo= rlo and default quantifiers

mmm, good points. =A0I guess what I was getting at is, just because there a= re no default quantifiers doesn't mean that people are going to use con= text to assume them. =A0(for example, you assume that {ro lo nanmu cu bevri= lo pipno})

And also that seems weird. =A0{no} is a number just like {pa= }, {re}, {su'o}, or {so'i}. =A0It seems weird that using it as a qu= antifier of a sumti can directly effect the selbri in ways that other numbe= rs can't.

I understand intuitively why that is the case. =A0But i= t still feels strange. =A0I kind of have to wonder if {mi na citka lo plise= } and {mi citka no plise} really are identical (I know that the meanings of= the statements are the same, but are the statements themselves the same as= each other)

2011/5/1 Jorge Llamb=EDas = <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com= > wrote:
> So I was thinking about this earlier today and came to a realization. = =A0If
> xorlo says that there are no default quantifiers for {lo} then wouldn&= #39;t {no}
> be a reasonable possibility for the assumed quantifier?

No, there isn't an assumed quantifier either.

> e.g. {mi citka lo plise}. =A0{lo plise} has no outer quantifier (impli= cit or
> explicit), but I suspect that most people will pick up from context th= at I
> in fact {citka pa lo su'opa plise} or something like it.

It will depend on the context, but as an isolated sentence I would translate it as "I eat apples". It doesn't even have to be ab= out any
specific occasion. I suspect that "I eat exactly one of the at least one apples" is not one of the most common interpretations.

>=A0Furthermore, if I
> said {mi nelci lo nu tcidu .i mi ponse lo cukta} I would think that pe= ople
> would read that as something like {mi ponse so'o lo so'i cukta= } or something
> like it.

I would read it as "I like reading. I own books." I don'= ;t think I
would read it as "I own several of many books".

> So if context can change the assumptions that the tecusku makes about = the
> secusku, then couldn't one of those assumptions be {no lo cukta} s= ince there
> is no proscribed default?

No, because "no" contains a negation. If you say "mi c= itka" you can't
expect people to understand that you mean "mi na citka". Similarl= y, if
you say "mi citka lo plise" you can't expect anyone to unders= tand that
you mean "mi citka no lo plise".

> Either the default quantifiers of {lo} should be {su'o} or it shou= ld be
> reasonable to assume that {mi xebni lo nu tcidu .ija'ebo mi ponse = lo cukta}
> could be understood as {mi xebni lo nu tcidu .ija'ebo mi ponse no = lo cukta}.

But "lo" has no quantifiers, default or otherwise. Why do y= ou want to
force one on it?

> =A0In my mind the latter is an unsafe assumption and I suspect that mo= st
> tecusku would respond with something like {.ue do cusku lo du'u br= odado na
> nelci lo nu tcidu .iku'i do ji'a cusku lo nu do ponse lo cukta= .i va'o lo nu
> broda kei mi sruma lo nu na brode}. =A0Therefore, I argue that even if= the
> grammar claims that {lo} has no default quantifiers, people read lojba= n with
> the assumption that {lo}'s implicit quantifiers are {su'o}. > Thoughts?

I at least don't.

Here is an example where "su'o" fails:

lo ci nanmu ca'o bevri lo pipno.
"Three men are carrying a piano."

It would not occur to me to conclude that at least one of the three
men is carrying a piano, my assumption would be that they are all
three doing it together.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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.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+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.

--
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.

--
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.
--000e0cdff82a20fa6e04a24ead3d--