Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QDolQ-0007kJ-RP; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:09:36 -0700 Received: by fxm14 with SMTP id 14sf2238420fxm.16 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:09:26 -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=P+sGcXGfNXqeJVQTSYpej+3mNv+Iu5PSIKlCizSMF+k=; b=yvuTqaOMcSiLGdNGz0wMSQqw3lEXcKNrbH5BxeR0s3NwYVjBc5GMMPw1VXbyhRcDzP IIIUExIdX0Mitr3zifzTH6rSZgI3Hd6aEv3JJdalBpwuwHmDqhTS6EEbm1Nv298MOlTp GH0ZBXFb1QsWQ4GirGx/QDMWsYOC+MBEuUlRY= 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=TgOkdWQ0HQTLJBXNuiuhz+kQ12+BojtxBETq/BDqIDthwyD8QJheNrR6Yg2T+CWYJp x4TqZEYpPVryFF8e+JllKOwedLLOqTX3OOx2xcSZucQhy8rhiMFZRX92+5voUVVKZtgN DMqfvOGT73RwB9/krpXiRvGlBGwT+aswHJ0fI= Received: by 10.223.5.16 with SMTP id 16mr674305fat.25.1303610961382; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:09:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.49.212 with SMTP id w20ls1652019bkf.2.gmail; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.14.195 with SMTP id h3mr180915bka.22.1303610960132; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.14.195 with SMTP id h3mr180914bka.22.1303610960090; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f49.google.com (mail-bw0-f49.google.com [209.85.214.49]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t11si774840bkf.6.2011.04.23.19.09.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.49; Received: by bwz1 with SMTP id 1so1361621bwz.36 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:09:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.151.202 with SMTP id d10mr2082134bkw.168.1303610959802; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:09:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.191.80 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:09:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 20:09:19 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] letter(as in note)/email endings? From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.49 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175cac942f31f204a1a094de Content-Length: 4266 --0015175cac942f31f204a1a094de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Marjorie Scherf wrote: > It appears that common practice for ending emails is to have {mu'o mi'e > _______ } where "________" is the name, but I recently noticed an email > signature in which the writer used {mi'e ________ mu'o} which, once I > thought about it, seems to make more sense. If {mu'o} is supposed to signal > the end of the transmission, anything after that would be disregarded, and > the self-introduction conventionally put at the end of emails and letters, > if put after the {mu'o} instead of before, would seem to be excluded from > the message. So when I actually think about it, it seems like {mi'e > _________ mu'o} would make more sense than the more common {mu'o mi'e > ________ } I more commonly see. I'm wondering whether my friend has has an > insight missed by the majority of the most vocal lojbanists, or if there is > some reason for the common form that I have not yet considered. > > .i mi'e la .jdakrat.skaryzgik. mu'o > Firstly, are you the same skaryzgik that hasn't been on here in a very, very long time? Secondly, mu'o is much like the English "Sincerely,". Anything that comes after it is not to be taken as pertaining to the conversation. Jon Jones, Sincerely -- mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) -- 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. --0015175cac942f31f204a1a094de Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Marjorie Scherf= <skaryzgik@gma= il.com> wrote:
It appears that common practice for ending emails is to have {mu'o mi&#= 39;e _______ } =A0where "________" is the name, but I recently no= ticed an email signature in which the writer used {mi'e ________ mu'= ;o} which, once I thought about it, seems to make more sense. If {mu'o}= is supposed to signal the end of the transmission, anything after that wou= ld be disregarded, and the self-introduction conventionally put at the end = of emails and letters, if put after the {mu'o} instead of before, would= seem to be excluded from the message. So when I actually think about it, i= t seems like {mi'e _________ mu'o} would make more sense than the m= ore common {mu'o mi'e ________ } I more commonly see. I'm wonde= ring whether my friend has has an insight missed by the majority of the mos= t=A0vocal lojbanists, or if there is some reason for the common form that I= have not yet considered.

.i mi'e la .jdakrat.skaryzgik. mu'o
=

Firstly, are you the same skaryzgik that hasn't been on here = in a very, very long time?

Secondly, mu'o is much like the Engli= sh "Sincerely,". Anything that comes after it is not to be taken = as pertaining to the conversation.

Jon Jones,
Sincerely

--
mu'o mi'e .= aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi p= atfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--
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.
--0015175cac942f31f204a1a094de--