From lojban+bncCIycn8S8DhDnwtnuBBoEieqIRQ@googlegroups.com Fri May 20 05:41:27 2011 Received: from mail-vx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QNP18-0004YH-Cs; Fri, 20 May 2011 05:41:27 -0700 Received: by vxk20 with SMTP id 20sf1455358vxk.16 for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 05:41:16 -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:date:message-id:subject:from: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=E1ahjmqfKDAZZWqAkvrg3RpD/0nfGLTK8tS6atRd6So=; b=OG6Ky2xvD23VacrIMWow9qi+2vDKeZNJXhVQjtPHRbs9mtk1DFahoJJ4JuzCbpLHnH Au8eKcg/AlstV1nG/nHwgwDKA2CiENvuFZe2XJqyWR53qYS+7q+PZnjB5YQi7zzVDUDa 9lc+cepMFsEOsUXkhGrZGMDqfDp+zmvDEvb64= 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:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=tYoD9+aBSMkbnmigbLJAQel0p87psZYMwr2d/fn+Gfy/26QMIWQM4cXeB5sRoQjddN rILFoVWjtTLacIEppfzBO/FJuSvvBdNH1OJwnoB8nxR+FSfzyb5jtZLnUvjgDzub+Xa7 eM9qR1J+cVVRWdVWml1HoOHafkOkJVWESCg3s= Received: by 10.220.203.193 with SMTP id fj1mr392515vcb.14.1305895271634; Fri, 20 May 2011 05:41:11 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.180.165 with SMTP id dp5ls799347vdc.3.gmail; Fri, 20 May 2011 05:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.175.98 with SMTP id bz2mr559609vdc.19.1305895270910; Fri, 20 May 2011 05:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.175.98 with SMTP id bz2mr559606vdc.19.1305895270861; Fri, 20 May 2011 05:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f47.google.com (mail-qw0-f47.google.com [209.85.216.47]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dr1si1612020vdc.2.2011.05.20.05.41.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 20 May 2011 05:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.47; Received: by qwh5 with SMTP id 5so2084650qwh.20 for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 05:41:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.71.77 with SMTP id g13mr3263539qcj.116.1305895270423; Fri, 20 May 2011 05:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.62.78 with HTTP; Fri, 20 May 2011 05:41:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 08:41:10 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] "lo no" 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 209.85.216.47 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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e64988f6b51cd104a3b46f1b --0016e64988f6b51cd104a3b46f1b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 4:35 AM, tijlan wrote: > On 19 May 2011 03:35, Michael Turniansky wrote: > >> On 17 May 2011 13:11, Michael Turniansky wrote: > >> > I say you CAN say "is-flying-teapot" of a nothing. > >> > >> "Nothing is a flying teapot"? I take notice of how it's convertible > >> into an expression that says of something: "Everything is not a flying > >> teapot". The same conversion is possible in Lojban: > >> > >> no da broda --> ro da na broda > >> > > > > Umm... actually, no, not under the CLL. (although xorxes disagrees > > with their definition of bridi negation). The following transforms are > > true: > > no da broda --> ro da na'e broda > > ro da na broda -> su'o da na'e broda > > > "no da broda" has the implicit bridi affirmer, "ja'a"; why would this > binary NA become a non-binary (scalar) NAhE rather than the binary > opposite ("na")? Consider the following non-metaphoric pair: > > no tanjo cu [ja'a] glare --> ro tanjo cu na'e glare > > It wouldn't. It really is naku broda. But since it seemed obvious from your original transformations you wouldn't understand the subtle distinction between "na" and "naku", I gave you the logical equivalent: "There is no X that is broda" <--> "all X are non-broda" > >> Besides, I wonder if the form of "no da broda" is as much common as > >> the form of "ro da na broda" among natural languages. Spanish "nada" > >> and French "rien" can each mean "anything" rather than "nothing" > >> depending on the verb's negativity. > >> > >> No veo nada. > >> Je ne vois rien. > >> ("I do not see anything." rather than "I see nothing".) > >> > >> Should these be translated as "mi viska no da" or "mi na viska ro da"? > > > > Either "mi viska no da" or "mi na viska su'o da". "mi na viska ro da" > > means it's not true that you see EVERYTHING, there are some things you > > don't see. > > > As far as what the natlang sentences literally mean, it is the case > that "it's not true that I see everything". "anything" in a negative > expression is an idiomatic term for "everything"; both correspond to > "ro da". "mi na viska ro da" may be a literal translation of "I do not > see anything". If "mi" isn't completely blind, however, there must be > some things which "mi" can see. The problem is the use of unrestricted > "anything/everything" on the natlang part. The same with "nothing"; "I > see nothing" doesn't necessarily mean that there is nothing which I > can see at all. > > Well, that goes back to the whole argument of whether existentials like "da" that are unqualified can be conextually dependent. Sorry, that was last month's discussion :-) > My point, anyway, was that "nothing is/does ..." (saying of nothing) > may not be more basic and universal a form than "everything/anything > is/does ..." (saying of something). Every expression with "nothing" > seems to be convertible into an expression with "everything"; and when > "everything" is not entirely accurate as in "I do not see everything > (while not completely blind)", the same inaccuracy can be found in "I > see nothing (while not completely blind)". So I wonder if any > statement with "nothing" has any truth independent of its "everything" > counterpart. If it isn't so independent, we can't really say of > nothing in its own right (although we can talk about the concept of > the *set* which has nothing, i.e. the set which doesn't have > everything). > > Please, please, please do not confuse natlangs with predicate logic. Nothing means nothing, everything/anything means everything/anything. If you mean "something" by either of those two wors, then we have that word -- su'o[da]. > > >> > But that page is not canon. That's xorxes' proposed extension of > the > >> > grammar. > >> > >> What canonical or more-acceptable-than-xorlo sources support your > >> argument for "lo no broda"? > > > > The zasni gerna cenba vreji page is NOT xorlo. They are only xorxes' > > additional proposed expansions to the grammar. > > > I know. I meant the xorlo definition of "lo broda", to which I was > comparing your "lo no broda". You implied that the basis for "nonai" > is unsatisfactory because it's not canonical, so I wondered whether > your own reasoning for "lo no broda" could be considered any more > satisfactory by the same standard you implicitly invoked. > > > Umm.. okay, let's try CLL Chapter 6.7: "This quantifier is called an ``inner quantifier'', and its meaning is quite different: it tells the listener how many objects the description selbri characterizes. " And this (although partially negated by xorlo): "Using exact numbers as inner quantifiers in lo-series descriptions is dangerous, because you are stating that exactly that many things exist which really fit the description" So if nothing does, "no" is a perfectly valid inner qualifier. > >> To the extent that "za'uno" too can mean non-integers like "pimu", > >> though, it too would have to be subjected to the said semantic > >> restriction when used with "mei". So "za'uno" wouldn't be functionally > >> different from "nonai". > >> > > a) you weren't restricting nonai use with mei. But again, saying > something > > should mean less than does when used in certain ways is falling into > natlang > > traps that we should be trying to avoid. > > > ro lo ki'o gerku cu ro roi cmoni -- Does the latter "ro" mean as many > as the former? > > so'i lo ki'o gerku cu batci so'i prenu -- Does the latter "so'i" mean > as many as the former? > > These inexact PA are context-dependent -- the number is determined > compositionally. Would be the same for "nonai". > > > Yes, obviously what it means as an exact number in a given context would be contextually dependent. I have no argument/problem with that. But using "nonai" where "za'uno" or "su'o" is more appropriate is like saying that one should use "ro" when "su'o" is called for if you only have one object in that context. Can you not see how that would lead to confusion? > Other examples of dynamic meaning include "le ninmu na ninmu". This > particular sumti from "ninmu" means less than what the brivla's > definition says it means, due to "le". And "le" doesn't so much > specify the meaning for which "ninmu" is changed, whereas "mei" may > specify the kind of numbers the preceding PA may be interpreted as. So > I don't see why "nonai mei" would be any more undesirable than "le > ninmu" in how the modified word means less than what it otherwise > does. > > > > b) This may be opening up another can of worms, but I'm not convinced > > that pimu shouldn't be allowed with mei. If I am speaking of a number of > > oranges, why can't I have a half of one? And from that universe of one > half > > orange, I can talk about a smaller amount. pipa lo pimu najnimre cu > fusra > > > "A half of one" states that "one" is cardinal to "a half", i.e. you > can't have "a half" without "one" of which to leave the other half. As > far as "mei" is concerned, "pipa", "pimu", "cipiso", etc. are > derivatives from elementary cardinal numbers (0, 1, 2, 3...). And > there is at least one logical reason why we shouldn't use such > derivatives as an inner quantifier, as a proper cardinality value of > something. We must be wary of the fallacy of division: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division > Consider this example: > > lo pimu vinji > > Can we safely say a 1/2 'airplane' is an airplane with vinji2 and > vinji3 (i.e. a full-fledged vinji1)? A part of something doesn't > necessarily inherit all properties of that whole. If lo broda lacks > certain properties that define lo brode, lo broda may not be > identified as lo brode, any more than it can be *associated* with lo > brode. We can avoid this issue by not messing up the cardinality & > reference of "lo vinji" itself and instead outer-quantifying it: > > pimu lo vinji > pipa lo pimu lo vinji > > Alternatively: > > lo xadba be lo vinji > pipa lo xadba be lo vinji > > (Note that "lo xadba be ...", unlike "pimu lo ...", can be pamei, > remei, cimei, etc. in its own right.) > > > Thanks for the pointer to the article, although I'm not sure that it applies here. In fact, why can't I say, "ro lo ci vinji ka'e vofli" but "no lo pimu vinji ka'e vofli"? Now, I grant you, if I wanted to talk about more than one "half-airplane", I'd have to phrase it differently. Without using xadba (simply because it's non-extensible to other-than-halves), my first impulse would be "no lo ci lo pimu vinji ka'e vofli", but that would violate the principle of inner qualifiers needing to be greater than or equal to outer ones, wouldn't it? So, I'm not sure. (Of course, that same issue obtains if you claim the answer is "no lo ci lo pimu lo vinji ka'e vofli". Or doesn't it?) > >> In the context of cardinality, "greater than zero" basically means "at > >> least one", and "su'o" would thereby be neater than "za'uno". But I > >> wanted to avoid that line of positive expressions, because earlier > >> comments (especially by xorxes) suggested that "su'o" may not be > >> considered a default inner quantifier for "lo broda". > >> > > > > But we aren't talking about defaults. We are talking about > > explicitnesses... weren't we? > > So if you believe it has to be at least one, su'o would do fine (although > it still won't inherently restrict it to integers) > > > We are talking about whether or not it's possible for "lo broda" to > have "no" as its inner quantifier (to be nomei). That possibility > isn't acknowledged by xorlo, according to which the referent of "lo > broda" (the x1 of selbri in general) is to be considered more than > nothing. This entails that any inner quantifier of "lo broda" be other > than "no" by default. There is this certain default sense that the > inner PA can't be "no", and that mathematically points to "za'uno" or > "su'o". Should either of these be the default inner quantifier, then? > I'm not sure, insofar as I respect the xorlo-proposer's opinion. > > But I don't see that indicated anywhere, implicitly or explicitly, in the xorlo proposal. I guess that's my main problem. Saying that "lo" with no inner qualifier means that there is always at least one is exactly the same as saying that the default inner qualifier is "su'o", which xorlo explicitly says is not the case. Help me out, here. --gejyspa -- 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. --0016e64988f6b51cd104a3b46f1b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 4:35 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:=20
=A0
On 19 May 2011 03:35, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:=20
>> On 17 May 2011 13:11, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I say you CAN say "is-flying-teapot" of a noth= ing.
>>
>> "Nothing is a flying teapot"? I take notice of how = it's convertible
>> into an expression that says of something: "Everything i= s not a flying
>> teapot". The same conversion is possible in Lojban:
>>
>> no da broda --> ro da na broda
>>
>
> =A0 =A0 Umm... actually, no, not under the CLL. =A0 (although xor= xes disagrees
> with their definition of bridi negation).=A0 The following transf= orms are
> true:
> no da broda --> ro da na'e broda
> ro da na broda -> su'o da na'e broda
=A0
=A0
"no da broda" has the implicit bridi affirmer= , "ja'a"; why would this=20
binary NA become a non-binary (scalar) NAhE rather than the binary
opposite ("na")? Consider the following non-metaphoric pair:=
=A0
no tanjo cu [ja'a] glare --> ro tanjo cu na'e glare
=A0
=A0
=A0 It wouldn't.=A0 It really is naku broda.=A0 But since it=A0see= med obvious from your original transformations you wouldn't understand = the subtle distinction between "na" and "naku", I gave = you the logical equivalent:=A0 "There is no X that is broda" <= --> "all X are non-broda"
=A0=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
>> Besides, I wonder if the form of "no da broda" is a= s much common as
>> the form of "ro da na broda" among natural language= s. Spanish "nada"
>> and French "rien" can each mean "anything"= ; rather than "nothing"
>> depending on the verb's negativity.
>>
>> No veo nada.
>> Je ne vois rien.
>> ("I do not see anything." rather than "I see n= othing".)
>>
>> Should these be translated as "mi viska no da" or &= quot;mi na viska ro da"?
>
> =A0 Either "mi viska no da"=A0 or "mi na viska su&= #39;o da".=A0 "mi na viska ro da"
> means it's not true that you see EVERYTHING,=A0 there are som= e things you
> don't see.
=A0
=A0
As far as what the natlang sentences literally mean, it= is the case=20
that "it's not true that I see everything". "anythi= ng" in a negative
expression is an idiomatic term for "everything"; both corre= spond to
"ro da". "mi na viska ro da" may be a literal tran= slation of "I do not
see anything". If "mi" isn't completely blind, howe= ver, there must be
some things which "mi" can see. The problem is the use of un= restricted
"anything/everything" on the natlang part. The same with &qu= ot;nothing"; "I
see nothing" doesn't necessarily mean that there is nothing w= hich I
can see at all.
=A0
=A0
=A0 Well, that goes back to the whole argument of whether existentials= like "da" that are unqualified can be conextually dependent.=A0 = Sorry, that was last month's discussion :-)
=A0
=A0
My point, anyway, was that "= ;nothing is/does ..." (saying of nothing)=20
may not be more basic and universal a form than "everything/anyth= ing
is/does ..." (saying of something). Every expression with "n= othing"
seems to be convertible into an expression with "everything"= ; and when
"everything" is not entirely accurate as in "I do not s= ee everything
(while not completely blind)", the same inaccuracy can be found i= n "I
see nothing (while not completely blind)". So I wonder if any
statement with "nothing" has any truth independent of its &q= uot;everything"
counterpart. If it isn't so independent, we can't really say o= f
nothing in its own right (although we can talk about the concept of
the *set* which has nothing, i.e. the set which doesn't have
everything).
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0 Please, please, please do not confuse natlangs with predicate logi= c. Nothing means nothing, everything/anything means everything/anything.=A0= If you mean "something" by either of those two wors, then we hav= e that word -- =A0su'o[da].
=A0
=A0
>> > =A0 But that page is not canon. =A0That's xorxes'= ; proposed extension of the
>> > grammar.
>>
>> What canonical or more-acceptable-than-xorlo sources support = your
>> argument for "lo no broda"?
>
> =A0 The zasni gerna cenba vreji page is NOT xorlo.=A0 They are on= ly xorxes'
> additional proposed expansions to the grammar.
=A0
=A0
I know. I meant the xorlo definition of "lo broda&= quot;, to which I was=20
comparing your "lo no broda". You implied that the basis for= "nonai"
is unsatisfactory because it's not canonical, so I wondered whethe= r
your own reasoning for "lo no broda" could be considered any= more
satisfactory by the same standard you implicitly invoked.
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0 Umm.. okay, let's try CLL Chapter 6.7: "This quantifier i= s called an ``inner quantifier'', and its meaning is quite differen= t: it tells the listener how many objects the description selbri characteri= zes. "=A0 And this (although partially=A0 negated by xorlo): "Usi= ng exact numbers as inner quantifiers in lo-series descriptions is dangerou= s, because you are stating that exactly that many things exist which really= fit the description"=A0 So if nothing does, "no" is a perfe= ctly valid inner qualifier.
=A0
>> To the extent that "za'uno" too can mean non-in= tegers like "pimu",
>> though, it too would have to be subjected to the said semanti= c
>> restriction when used with "mei". So "za'u= no" wouldn't be functionally
>> different from "nonai".
>>
> =A0 a) you weren't restricting nonai use with mei. But again,= saying something
> should mean less than does when used in certain ways is falling i= nto natlang
> traps that we should be trying to avoid.
=A0
=A0
ro lo ki'o gerku cu ro roi cmoni -- Does the latter= "ro" mean as many=20
as the former?
=A0
so'i lo ki'o gerku cu batci so'i prenu -- Does the latter = "so'i" mean
as many as the former?
=A0
These inexact PA are context-dependent -- the number is determined
compositionally. Would be the same for "nonai".
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0 Yes, obviously what it means as an exact number=A0in a given conte= xt would be contextually dependent. I have no argument/problem with that.= =A0 But using "nonai" where "za'uno" or "su= 9;o" is more appropriate is like saying that one should use "ro&q= uot; when "su'o" is called for if you only have one object in= that context.=A0 Can you not see how that would lead to confusion?
=A0
=A0
Other examples of dynamic meanin= g include "le ninmu na ninmu". This=20
particular sumti from "ninmu" means less than what the brivl= a's
definition says it means, due to "le". And "le" do= esn't so much
specify the meaning for which "ninmu" is changed, whereas &q= uot;mei" may
specify the kind of numbers the preceding PA may be interpreted as. So=
I don't see why "nonai mei" would be any more undesirabl= e than "le
ninmu" in how the modified word means less than what it otherwise=
does.
=A0
=A0
> =A0 b)=A0 This may be opening up another can of worms, but I'= m not convinced
> that pimu shouldn't be allowed with mei.=A0 If I am speaking = of a number of
> oranges, why can't I have a half of one?=A0 And from that uni= verse of one half
> orange, I can talk about a smaller amount.=A0 pipa lo pimu najnim= re cu fusra
=A0
=A0
"A half of one" states that "one" i= s cardinal to "a half", i.e. you=20
can't have "a half" without "one" of which to = leave the other half. As
far as "mei" is concerned, "pipa", "pimu"= ;, "cipiso", etc. are
derivatives from elementary cardinal numbers (0, 1, 2, 3...). And
there is at least one logical reason why we shouldn't use such
derivatives as an inner quantifier, as a proper cardinality value of
something. We must be wary of the fallacy of division:
Consider this example:
=A0
lo pimu vinji
=A0
Can we safely say a 1/2 'airplane' is an airplane with vinji2 = and
vinji3 (i.e. a full-fledged vinji1)? A part of something doesn't
necessarily inherit all properties of that whole. If lo broda lacks
certain properties that define lo brode, lo broda may not be
identified as lo brode, any more than it can be *associated* with lo
brode. We can avoid this issue by not messing up the cardinality &=
reference of "lo vinji" itself and instead outer-quantifying= it:
=A0
pimu lo vinji
pipa lo pimu lo vinji
=A0
Alternatively:
=A0
lo xadba be lo vinji
pipa lo xadba be lo vinji
=A0
(Note that "lo xadba be ...", unlike "pimu lo ..."= , can be pamei,
remei, cimei, etc. in its own right.)
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0 Thanks for the pointer to the article, although I'm not sure t= hat it applies here.=A0=A0=A0 In fact, why can't I say, "ro lo ci = vinji ka'e vofli" but "no lo pimu vinji ka'e vofli"?= =A0 Now, I grant you, if I wanted to talk about more than one "half-ai= rplane", I'd have to phrase it differently. Without using xadba (s= imply because it's=A0non-extensible to other-than-halves), my first imp= ulse would be=A0"no lo ci lo pimu vinji ka'e vofli", but that= would violate the principle of inner qualifiers needing to be greater than= or equal to outer ones, wouldn't it?=A0 So, I'm not sure. (Of cour= se, that same issue obtains if you claim the answer is "no lo ci lo pi= mu lo vinji ka'e vofli". Or doesn't it?)=A0
=A0
>> In the context of cardinality, "greater than zero" = basically means "at
>> least one", and "su'o" would thereby be ne= ater than "za'uno". But I
>> wanted to avoid that line of positive expressions, because ea= rlier
>> comments (especially by xorxes) suggested that "su'o= " may not be
>> considered a default inner quantifier for "lo broda"= ;.
>>
>
> =A0 But we aren't talking about defaults.=A0 We are talking a= bout
> explicitnesses... weren't we?
> So if you believe it has to be at least one, su'o would do fi= ne (although it still won't inherently restrict it to integers)
=A0
=A0
We are talking about whether or not it's possible f= or "lo broda" to=20
have "no" as its inner quantifier (to be nomei). That possib= ility
isn't acknowledged by xorlo, according to which the referent of &q= uot;lo
broda" (the x1 of selbri in general) is to be considered more tha= n
nothing. This entails that any inner quantifier of "lo broda"= ; be other
than "no" by default. There is this certain default sense th= at the
inner PA can't be "no", and that mathematically points t= o "za'uno" or
"su'o". Should either of these be the default inner quan= tifier, then?
I'm not sure, insofar as I respect the xorlo-proposer's opinio= n.
=A0
=A0
=A0 But I don't see that indicated anywhere, implicitly or explici= tly,=A0in the xorlo proposal.=A0 I guess that's my main problem.=A0 Say= ing that "lo" with no inner qualifier means that there is always = at least one is exactly the same=A0 as saying that the default inner qualif= ier is "su'o", which xorlo explicitly says is not the case.= =A0 Help me out, here.
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --gejyspa
=A0

--
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.
--0016e64988f6b51cd104a3b46f1b--