From and.rosta@gmail.com Wed Oct 17 02:21:00 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:21:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.172]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ii55B-0006Yl-FV for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:21:00 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so227512uge for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:20:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fWPL3pmn4/pZHPEznz5/ALdekq0ITmI1dRs0LEwbj+U=; b=aId0l7RY0CiYrtbWhhP83X7XpPhpMjarIUqiPm96fmrnPujAD5aLqOaGIzWvou5vxEqFytQP+9VWmWhIIeCNIyVp9fDoj4MZHzgoeYt8M7OywObbn1UdJyHVhuT1NKaq7tQnmQBo4TySBnk2KzkgtNXMIY1ROtYCMB2POLYn/F4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Y5wjQHglFF3fYPwKAiO/KCUjoMnwkobVctEtaBApkCt7D3ofhwy4wN1r3O5loK6qtMs3ljDIEMsTKfbAI+4Dph8xtOjSzfmeEyebdWHE3lE0V3ywaGDfD2rH+/vkHFaGRGoQszSIxwByfN+YvP+qR5QKMwbMLcRhbjifGPJpF7w= Received: by 10.66.242.5 with SMTP id p5mr431077ugh.1192612840470; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:20:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?77.96.184.249? ( [77.96.184.249]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u1sm3238562uge.2007.10.17.02.20.37 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:20:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4715D3E3.5000003@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:20:35 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business References: <20071011190654.GO13890@digitalkingdom.org> <20071013110233.GU1196@nvg.org> <20071016193843.GI5630@digitalkingdom.org> <20071016194330.GF28745@mercury.ccil.org> <20071016202338.GL5630@digitalkingdom.org> <20071016213405.GG28745@mercury.ccil.org> <20071016213807.GO5630@digitalkingdom.org> <20071016220537.GI28745@mercury.ccil.org> <20071016222008.GK28745@mercury.ccil.org> In-Reply-To: <20071016222008.GK28745@mercury.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 446 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: and.rosta@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members John Cowan, On 16/10/2007 23:20: > Theodore Reed scripsit: > >> By, what, completely not explaining gadri or something? > > No, by explaining the intersection of the two varieties. I'm not saying > this can be done easily (and maybe not at all), but IMHO it's worth > looking at. > > The preference for lo over le is just that, a preference; I probably > won't adopt it even if/when xorlo becomes official semantics. > (Any more than I'm going to adopt "Andamaniac" Lojban, where instead > of "mi klama le zarci" you say "klama be fa mi bei fe le zarci ku be'o".) This is a misleading comparison. The Andamaniacal example you give is a difference of style and discourse structure (namely, order in which information is presented). But the normal and Andamaniacal sentences mean the same thing, truthconditionally. In contrast, "le" and "lo" mean different things. One can still have a preference for one over the other, but it is a preference for one meaning over another. Furthermore the preference is not arbitrary or merely stylistic. Traditional lojban usage heavy on the use of "le" always seemed to me poor Lojban, either because the author was failing to think about the actual meaning of their sentences, or because community usage norms consistently flouted the official design.[*] If community norms have switched to xorlo, that is quite an incredible triumph for the community. (I say "incredible" because I'd have bet heavily against it ever happening.) --And. [* In talking about the official design I'm assuming that in the official design the e/o distinction was one of specificity, and that veridicality was a minor detail given undue prominence as a result of some early documentation compiled by linguistically inexpert people.]