From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Jun 13 14:23:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23865 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2000 21:23:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Jun 2000 21:23:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.121) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 21:23:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 20680 invoked by uid 0); 13 Jun 2000 21:23:43 -0000 Message-ID: <20000613212343.20679.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.49.74.2 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:23:43 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: lujvo Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:23:43 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" >From: Robin Lee Powell > > lo LE the really is > veridical descriptor: the one(s) that really > is(are) ... > >The implication is that the speaker is insisting that such a thing >really is. That is what the speaker claims, but why would a claim that the speaker makes and that you don't believe offend you? Only because it is about some god, I suppose. Or are you offended by any claim with which you disagree? >Note that the specific vector of offense for me would be if someone used >a generic expression like that ("one or more mothers of one or more >gods") to refer specifically to Christianity and its mythology. But that would be a grammatical mistake, {lo} is not used for specific reference. It would offend my sense of the language too, but not for religious reasons. >The >all-too-common assumption by Christians that their religion is the only >relevant one pisses me off. Me too, not just Christians, but majorities in general. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com