From lojban+bncCNTPpI2KGxCdoZnvBBoE2I_tVg@googlegroups.com Wed Jun 01 07:46:04 2011 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QRmgK-0006Ve-Hs; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:46:04 -0700 Received: by vws2 with SMTP id 2sf3335058vws.16 for ; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:45:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:x-authority-analysis :x-cloudmark-score:x-originating-ip:from:to:subject:date:user-agent :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:message-id: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:content-disposition; bh=yAbPisqUF+kFXwV2SmlW19JIJTQLAON8NY/g700UT08=; b=S342yUlzqm+VpCWFGt31p6yFvUWa7+paVTsvlPL2luLywRHtJ147IxD01gw8Wm6l3N BYSRnASvRJakXjWCyepZZJiHEi9WueU5g6lj+u0ev/IrbGn07BIDErHzfyx2AZvK2LeS FSSLlaihNrZ9GKXjJpUQ4CwLkcLLTliASkKuw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-authority-analysis:x-cloudmark-score :x-originating-ip:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references :in-reply-to:mime-version:message-id: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:content-disposition; b=wm1DgYbQIJCH0QEZ+8GjVSAtP4Msl/ASRkzr1PAJEaczNwX7a4ED/ADHfD2kwqB+Pw +hU6wGW7Bi2Itv11/ubclBZeJpg9PncodS5PPmY8jhRw3uDakTpUvD7mLmvkicOblhhu WptvmhW/zre15TXOGpGl+jymjCxrItO8khozE= Received: by 10.220.189.193 with SMTP id df1mr951193vcb.7.1306939549835; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:45:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.76.10 with SMTP id g10ls235523vdw.3.gmail; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:45:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.100.40 with SMTP id ev8mr518395vdb.0.1306939549107; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:45:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.100.40 with SMTP id ev8mr518394vdb.0.1306939549099; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:45:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com (cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com [75.180.132.123]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id ch6si870255vdb.2.2011.06.01.07.45.48; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:45:49 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 75.180.132.123 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of phma@phma.optus.nu) client-ip=75.180.132.123; X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=8mDY8c80ZOa76EOwICuS+E2YRQjxDgO9xqUnRMONc7w= c=1 sm=0 a=6ti_TD8eFm8A:10 a=oH0_m9M6qa4A:10 a=wPDyFdB5xvgA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=9o99xeNKNPYSmM5t9x5+TQ==:17 a=Ri9EJQu4zd0EEvY3B_wA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=9o99xeNKNPYSmM5t9x5+TQ==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 75.176.118.168 Received: from [75.176.118.168] ([75.176.118.168:36504] helo=chausie) by cdptpa-oedge03.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 0C/9B-00666-C9056ED4; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 14:45:48 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chausie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477561F483 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 10:45:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Pierre Abbat To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] sedu'o no natfe... Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 10:45:41 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <201105311203.46300.phma@phma.optus.nu> <456619.53025.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <456619.53025.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201106011045.43488.phma@phma.optus.nu> X-Original-Sender: phma@phma.optus.nu X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 75.180.132.123 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of phma@phma.optus.nu) smtp.mail=phma@phma.optus.nu 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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 31 May 2011 13:59:15 John E Clifford wrote: > Since a recently concluded (?) discussion resulted (I think) in the > declaration that {lo no ...} is automatically suspect, even meaningless, I > suppose the second version should be eliminated, although the rest of the > sentence does seem to allow for some aberrence. Do you think "sedu'onai lo natfe" would work? There may indeed be some evidence to the contrary, but it is unknown and undetected. Pierre -- The Black Garden on the Mountain is not on the Black Mountain. -- 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.