From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCZi43xBBoEpLqARg@googlegroups.com Sun Jul 17 13:27:19 2011 Received: from mail-vx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QiXvo-0006uY-64; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:27:18 -0700 Received: by vxg38 with SMTP id 38sf1791015vxg.16 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:27:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-ymail-osg :x-yahoo-smtp:references:in-reply-to :x-apple-yahoo-original-message-folder:mime-version:message-id :x-mailer:from:x-apple-yahoo-replied-msgid:subject:date: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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8CwEAf1ZW4FEj7brQzbPC+quiua9zdGsd3EacgoxuUc=; b=Jq5QBYzJzXaglK3H8+z7wUS9/QDaiiQRf7POrQd+0bGJwUm84V16qwl+hIw9lHK7SK RGZ1edcyhRF5HbQzJLww1CCL3jXObldlIPoLfRnbftsrPcBSB6+6UYl3aDcDqwq323wy KdMnCU4e0PlstA/ZhZGw56hZ8J58NzlUqi6bs= Received: by 10.220.117.68 with SMTP id p4mr702598vcq.10.1310934425350; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:27:05 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.176.68 with SMTP id cg4ls649443vdc.3.gmail; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:27:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.96.164 with SMTP id dt4mr1097920vdb.11.1310934424504; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:27:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.96.164 with SMTP id dt4mr1097919vdb.11.1310934424494; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:27:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp102-mob.biz.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (smtp102-mob.biz.mail.ac4.yahoo.com [76.13.13.223]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id v20si2846449vdu.2.2011.07.17.13.27.04; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:27:04 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 76.13.13.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=76.13.13.223; Received: (qmail 76781 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2011 20:27:04 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 861fUz0VM1kHaIsfEshdiWhmjfTB5G7N79UFeo_w2muaLNB CJFIohKGHcPi33AXIvUdNkXkJcpJKR9V1_Ed8nMlSGmCP4O2bOBYGBUTBjq7 uLwQDMKCath1PZhibkhU_BFxtVgUI6scEoFXyYcrvz6vQkouhT4Wx89nH0x1 7CMYY2lKP_VusVYZI23k0WVxwonU4cKGaIo09ga.d2MuTbyeln3E_KV1fs_7 9LGkdD0jQm24iSSwdbVtpvgtHVXNh3FY8wg_znb1rGSqoizcpzETMpquaF.F GLV981GX4kz_NjHslWtzakp9k73RHnfMc7lEDLUxtkQkCJVGjb2sAzJV4Nfb Ikua8r5b1Y8kSM3y3auiAF8xzOrpBB3Nhx6KhjWg3MNrQSHGtTDhdp0mrl6g _EIdCzXxV4ZKDrTKBcr_V6PjYDZdjQGqwk44rO1yjox8tta13U1RhO0MhCkl sF6jgq.9uDA-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: xvGyF4GswBCIFKGaxf5wSjlg3RF108g- Received: from [192.168.1.68] (kali9putra@99.92.108.41 with xymcookie) by smtp102-mob.biz.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Jul 2011 13:27:03 -0700 PDT References: <1310834449.33385.YahooMailRC@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <380A4C35-EF1C-4F52-ADBF-324B57D9DDEF@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: X-Apple-Yahoo-Original-Message-Folder: AAlojbanery Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8G4) Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8G4) From: "John E. Clifford" X-Apple-Yahoo-Replied-Msgid: 1_9331135_AHnHjkQAAG+hTiMKkAYE2xGwFak Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: xu dai Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 16:33:39 -0400 To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 76.13.13.223 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There are a few implicit defaults, as required for reasonably efficient and= interesting conversation (imagine having to identify every sentence in a r= eport as informative). Having vocabulary based rules seems a bad idea, thou= gh (and I don't think 'mi stidi' is a suggestion, anyhow). "pass the blame" and "chicanery" are merely discriptive of the psychology i= nvalid, not at all rhetoric. (and I am Marie of Rumania). The serious purp= ose here is the description of a logical language, into which this rather d= ubious practice ought not fit. I think that I would be reasonably content if everyone lived by your last s= entence, as I am sure the will (and I am still M/R). Sent from my iPad On Jul 17, 2011, at 12:15, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 7:49 PM, John E. Clifford = wrote: >> We comeback to the question of Lojban being a logical language and what = that means. While I think we have wandered unconsciously pretty far from t= he original meaning, I don't see any reason to deliberately and consciously= do so. And one part of all that is to keep one grammatical distinction ov= ert (or at least clearly marked). Now it would be a possible one -- but on= e uniting slippage, I think, to allow that for certain predicate in certain= contexts, when unmarked, to indicate a different speech act from the usual= one (informative). >=20 > It is always possible to mark the it clearly when needed. I don't > think having forced implicit defaults is a good idea. >=20 >> Did I really describe a generalization for 'dai'? >=20 > Not a complete genaralization, but what it would mean for "xu dai" and > for "ko dai". >=20 >> Other than to point out how ridiculous it was for any serious purpose (= I have a logician's contempt for rhetoric)? >=20 > But why should language be limited to serious purposes? It needs to > cover the whole gamut of purposes. >=20 >> 'e'u dai do klama' is a suggestion, if at all, that I am making (no one= else has said it) and trying to pass the blame to someone else is mere chi= canery. >=20 > "Trying to pass the blame"? "Chicanery"? What happened to your > contempt for rhetoric? >=20 >> In particular, your suggesting that you come seems inherently a vapid s= peech act, unless you sense an objection to it. So, my making the suggesti= on that you come but projecting it on you is either to state those objectio= ns or to rebut them. But, as with the question case, it is ultimately my s= peech act, not yours (not even one you intended, if the question cases are = anything to go by). >=20 > Of course, a speech act is always an act performed by the speaker, > that's the definition of speech act, isn't it? An act that someone > performs by means of speech. That some speech acts may be performed by > the speaker putting themselves in the shoes of someone else does not > make it any less their act. >=20 > mu'o mi'e xorxes >=20 > --=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@googlegr= oups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb= an?hl=3Den. >=20 --=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.