Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PrbDq-00088J-7E; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:15:06 -0800 Received: by gyd10 with SMTP id 10sf1731030gyd.16 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:14:56 -0800 (PST) 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:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=5oQw80et6bM5IYQOevKCtYS6TaTDJi4oSGYYPdsrg6c=; b=KFCuLIzRVb3wNVWq/BIL9bBdzagh417oLFbWhFcYUxaqqz/IMjOEsJdbphQ+1J2n5B QkPmdIqJAaBX/QjEGHSfmhdTpkV+t8hDrwNgd80N/BxzagC+g8kSK8X4jprzNAfmQfUE 3EpDF3JpN0Sgp/ZnbwB9A0spcD8YrW3NvizQE= 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:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=4H8BLkpf0RaJXdiAbeBQd7lF5phicyzU1ZtI84cvbuszVXbA9PaGKtcSHvC0ijmBfe 7yPEDir79jECMxE0BUqZYc3U46g85G+pxMmcYEj6DGxSsikNFLPkdoAdwqrHDxE2XA/Q zxoX9/n6KyS+U19CjydeJ1kJth5h7NTwLy8uU= Received: by 10.150.230.9 with SMTP id c9mr277917ybh.41.1298315688212; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:14:48 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.200.3 with SMTP id eu3ls5154213ibb.1.p; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:14:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.36.66 with SMTP id s2mr535951ibd.5.1298315687463; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:14:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.36.66 with SMTP id s2mr535950ibd.5.1298315687408; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:14:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f176.google.com (mail-iy0-f176.google.com [209.85.210.176]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j25si1220397ibb.0.2011.02.21.11.14.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:14:47 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.176 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.176; Received: by iyj12 with SMTP id 12so1322109iyj.21 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:14:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.180.194 with SMTP id bv2mr2437048icb.171.1298315687043; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:14:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.199.141 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:14:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201102171403.40004.phma@phma.optus.nu> <201102171622.02738.phma@phma.optus.nu> From: Luke Bergen Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:14:27 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Question about {roda} To: lojban-beginners@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 209.85.210.176 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e8c76552395049ccfad4e Content-Length: 7789 --90e6ba6e8c76552395049ccfad4e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 My only concern is that if {roda} has an implicite {poi co'e} then I'm not sure what you could put in for that {co'e} that gets you back to the strong EVERYTHING that logicians want. lojban makes it very easy to narrow a concepts meaning (with tanru, with poi/noi, with further bridi, etc...), but there are very few ways (none that my fever-addled brain can think of at the moment anyway) that expand a concepts meaning. So if we take something as widely expanded as {ro} and say "oh, but it's not really universal all the time" then what CAN you say that is consistently universal? On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:46 PM, .arpis. wrote: > It seems to me that the contention is not so much about {da} but mostly > about {ro}, and to whether or not an implicit {poi co'e} is permitted in > most situations. > > This seems perfectly fine (if imprecise) to me, provided this does not > apply in a logical prenex. > People who know lojban better than I seem to be having a discussion about > this, and I'm trying to keep up and learn. > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Remo Dentato wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Luke Bergen >> wrote: >> > I would read that as "everything (which are people) hate me". So you're >> > still saying {roda xebni mi} while also implying that {roda prenu}. >> >> Yes, I was just saying that since you had {noi}, you might use {poi} >> instead and really restrict {da}. >> >> I hope we all will end up with a sort of common understanding. >> At the moment I'm still on the side of those that say that {da} may be >> implicitly bound by by reasonable assumptions on the context (the >> universe of discourse), I'm no longer sure of who's against this point >> of view (and why). >> >> remo >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Lojban Beginners" group. >> To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. >> >> > > > -- > mu'o mi'e .arpis. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lojban Beginners" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. --90e6ba6e8c76552395049ccfad4e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My only concern is that if {roda} has an implicite {poi co'e} then I= 9;m not sure what you could put in for that {co'e} that gets you back t= o the strong EVERYTHING that logicians want.

lojban make= s it very easy to narrow a concepts meaning (with tanru, with poi/noi, with= further bridi, etc...), but there are very few ways (none that my fever-ad= dled brain can think of at the moment anyway) that expand a concepts meanin= g. =A0So if we take something as widely expanded as {ro} and say "oh, = but it's not really universal all the time" then what CAN you say = that is consistently universal?

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:46 PM, .arpis= . <rp= glover64+jbobau@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems to me that the contention is not so much about {da} but mostly abo= ut {ro}, and to whether or not an implicit {poi co'e} is permitted in m= ost situations.

This seems perfectly fine (if imprecise) to me, prov= ided this does not apply in a logical prenex.
People who know lojban better than I seem to be having a discussion about t= his, and I'm trying to keep up and learn.


On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Rem= o Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 20= 11 at 7:22 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would read that as "everything (which are people) hate me"= . =A0So you're
> still saying {roda xebni mi} while also implying that {roda prenu}.
Yes, I was just saying that since you had {noi}, you might use {poi}<= br> instead and really restrict {da}.

I hope we all will end up with a sort of common understanding.
At the moment I'm still on the side of those that say that {da} may be<= br> implicitly bound by by reasonable assumptions on the context (the
universe of discourse), I'm no longer sure of who's against this po= int
of view (and why).

remo

--
You received this message because you are subsc= ribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+un= subscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.




--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+un= subscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.
--90e6ba6e8c76552395049ccfad4e--