Received: from [::1] (port=50588 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eV7P1-0005Y9-U6; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:01:39 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]:36835) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eV7OV-0005UP-3d for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:01:08 -0800 Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id b76so50579591wmg.1 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:01:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=hINp0A82XslUYVvRUOYdTusQv4eXa582KKZOv5mXTSA=; b=BPcEwt6wX7X/8GPJn9GYxWOWLQXNOol5chx7pQJ5by4QHTn+lEzvSFtthGAIs9mWqf mHgpBGXyOMA8k5GUD1yq14Lv3uLyA6WeOU5oFGXSnj5pWH+4KEW+TO1s6T1nkE6/d07q fyRDHG1PMiYyrYpHqljoMeWP2Vi1RN6D6el62JrmMsPPoRUHNcJRv/d92cgs1Aanu8J2 YKUpkj0Ml52e4M/RPy2jagpweicSIE0E1dUATmlTYw1pz1DU/VecsRQaICSr6sd9l5Nn IRH0yAliS1+vpyH6dQo1Lo14qB23Oc4McDnCSq98Dtr9prS/eq6HdYx3UXve/UpXU+Pb IWaw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=hINp0A82XslUYVvRUOYdTusQv4eXa582KKZOv5mXTSA=; b=mqO/RFJqGqDuvvFugaGnd/h051zeXqBypZrDFPcMNmHqrE8KTy6Ti+0fi0MsmOeVH5 ZuOVQyDWR6QdIuFvLe+DB0couCxBYvOg4wj+lj34HZ7c/sKXffUyjm/mx4MjAxT4o2// bt4gDRKavfdZr+yC+dITzMFIruav3nHF6C+u6rqZN8/zSMMobXRYclRwTyoPDlV3GBgt vpWdbfatpADpSQmFDz0vUm5TOgf6LgjgS88QCfOiV+pZDOmiIrssPAzX2vpdzRtciVbw OQBmL9n5zPV68UkmxJKQTbxKZS1aiFsXaZWuZ7DrFEd5FjJ5/RulDayZUShdwCao1XtD 6IGg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mITi6o1ZgR3wCoc3is1cDq1Jb+mFbPiE1NZXD7t6nfIwSa/DUkb hAc/bBm5FLpEMFOAZ9j15CHC83hTtYzil0S7IQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBoskC5MYWk9n89m2wKLC2v2O3QK5QRX+rc1XuiI/i0x988G8m4AO7BQs6Q+lUeRE8lwUW48N5O7V0IdOjoa3WcQ= X-Received: by 10.80.174.201 with SMTP id f9mr47635827edd.139.1514602860151; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:01:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.173.219 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:00:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7074953.2veMK8YGUJ@caracal> <6c826210-9f71-1813-2957-7e5593ad18ed@lojban.org> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 06:00:19 +0300 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Unfinished Business: BPFK X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7709407979542943478==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============7709407979542943478== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c29287489b7056185f56b" --f403045c29287489b7056185f56b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 2017-12-30 4:05 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > > > On 29 Dec 2017 19:45, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > > 2017-12-29 18:29 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > >> >> >> On 26 Dec 2017 19:36, "Bob LeChevalier" wrote: >> > The bylaws were formulated to broadly cover a variety of forms of >> research into logical languages, and there has always been the possibility >> of conducting or supporting such research. But to put it simply, no one has >> been interested in such research EXCEPT in the form of promoting and >> studying the use of Lojban. >> >> That statement is patently false and wilfully amnesiac. >> >> I was for many years the most vocal proponent of the LLG's mission to >> explore logical language >> > > And what were your actions? > > > I have limited patience for your penchant for trollishness, so it may be > necessary for me to limit my further responses to you. > If you want to avoid answering direct questions then why even start this duscussion? Why utter things that you can't prove? I can also say that I have been promoting Sumerian in LLG for many years. > > There still doesn't exist a logical language that has to be called > "logical language" according to your terminology. > > > That is untrue. It is not not only contingently untrue (due to the > existence of various loglangs) but also patently untrue, given that > standard predicate logic notation constitutes a written loglang, that > writing can count as phonology, and that there are obviously no conceptual > obstacles to giving the written form counterparts that are expressed > phonetically. > So you are talking about non spoken loglangs then. > > > --And. > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --f403045c29287489b7056185f56b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2017-12-30 4:05 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
<= div>

On 29 Dec= 2017 19:45, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:<= br type=3D"attribution">


=
2017-12-29 18:29 GMT+03:00= And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:


On 26 Dec 2017 19:36, "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org>= ; wrote:
> The bylaws were = formulated to broadly cover a variety of forms of research into logical lan= guages, and there has always been the possibility of conducting or supporti= ng such research. But to put it simply, no one has been interested in such = research EXCEPT in the form of promoting and studying the use of Lojban.

That statement is patently false and wilfully amne= siac.

I was for many years the most vocal proponent of = the LLG's mission to explore logical language

And what were your actions?

I have limited patience for your penchant for trollishness,= so it may be necessary for me to limit my further responses to you.
<= /div>


If you want to avoid a= nswering direct questions then why even start this duscussion? Why utter th= ings that you can't prove?

I can also say that= I have been promoting Sumerian in LLG for many years.

=



=
There still doesn't exist a logical lan= guage that has to be called "logical language" according to your = terminology.

That is untrue. It is not not = only contingently untrue (due to the existence of various loglangs) but als= o patently untrue, given that standard predicate logic notation constitutes= a written loglang, that writing can count as phonology, and that there are= obviously no conceptual obstacles to giving the written form counterparts = that are expressed phonetically.

So you are talking about non spoken loglangs then.
=C2=A0
=


--And.

_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members


--f403045c29287489b7056185f56b-- --===============7709407979542943478== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============7709407979542943478==--