DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=MwvxkHvrXGmHywxUkx+p/bBxjMgCwhiQbSiS9y3qKnwz+RDggEMShzKcjqaEJ5alHrIv0MoxrfHdEkO5H+t00gQ8Ia6Bjkq81cT/ZSdVQp18qCGAOIXxL1L94vcDsOwKqsixYIacTrxOB2OerLu8CzJexjl16lM/cFAGltRIiTg=;
Message-ID: <1322891625.93267.YahooMailNeo@web120016.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 21:53:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Luke Mirah <thetrinity130@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Luke Mirah <thetrinity130@yahoo.com>
Subject: Ithkuil and the critique of internal design of lojban
To: "lojban@lojban.org" <lojban@lojban.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-1446626398-2006848417-1322891625=:93267"
X-Spam_score: 0.5
X-Spam_score_int: 5
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  Some linguist Im reading about on his website mentions lojban
    criticisms on the introductory page. Could one please take a look at the
   technical jargon and tell me if the criticisms are credible or false? [...]
    
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.5 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (thetrinity130[at]yahoo.com)
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE     RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no
                             trust
                             [98.138.229.65 listed in list.dnswl.org]
  1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT Reply-To freemail username ends in digit
                             (luke mirah <thetrinity130[at]yahoo.com>
 )
 -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD        Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain
  0.1 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
                             digit (thetrinity130[at]yahoo.com)
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU          Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
                             domain
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID             Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
Sender: Nobody <nobody@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>

---1446626398-2006848417-1322891625=:93267
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=A0=A0=A0 Some linguist Im reading about on his website mentions lojban cri=
ticisms on the introductory page. Could one please take a look at the techn=
ical jargon and tell me if the criticisms are credible or false? =0A=0A=0A"=
Loglan and its derivatives are   merely sophisticated tools for symbol =0Am=
anipulation, i.e., the levels of language    known as morphology and =0Asyn=
tax. It is not within the scope of   such languages to address any =0Areorg=
anization of the semantic realm. This means   that symbolic logic =0Asimply=
 manipulates arguments which are input into the   system, they do =0Anot an=
alyze the origin of those arguments in terms of meaning,   nor are they cap=
able of analyzing or formalizing the structure of the cognitive or semantic=
 realm of the human mind in terms of how meaning itself is assigned   to ar=
guments". "Loglan and similar efforts fail to address the   inconsistencies=
 and =0Ainefficiency inherent in language at the lexico-semantic   level. =
=0AIthkuil has been designed to systematically address this issue."
---1446626398-2006848417-1322891625=:93267
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body><div style=3D"color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:ga=
ramond, new york, times, serif;font-size:14pt"><div><span class=3D"tab">&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Some linguist Im reading about on his website mentions lojb=
an criticisms on the introductory page. Could one please take a look at the=
 technical jargon and tell me if the criticisms are credible or false? <br>=
</span></div><div><span class=3D"tab"><br></span></div><div><span class=3D"=
tab">"</span>Loglan and its derivatives are   merely sophisticated tools fo=
r symbol =0Amanipulation, i.e., the levels of language    known as morpholo=
gy and =0Asyntax. It is not within the scope of   such languages to address=
 any =0Areorganization of the semantic realm. This means   that symbolic lo=
gic =0Asimply manipulates arguments which are input into the   system, they=
 do =0Anot analyze the origin of those arguments in terms of meaning,   nor=
 are=0A they capable of analyzing or formalizing the structure of the cogni=
tive=0A   or semantic realm of the human mind in terms of how meaning itsel=
f is=0A assigned   to arguments". "Loglan and similar efforts fail to addre=
ss the   inconsistencies and =0Ainefficiency inherent in language at the le=
xico-semantic   level. =0AIthkuil has been designed to systematically addre=
ss this issue."</div></div></body></html>
---1446626398-2006848417-1322891625=:93267--