On T= hu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:

.u'= inai.o'o.i'enaicu'i.ienaicu'i.o'u.oisairo'e

=
Your whole missive is completely not in the spirit of the APE.

I mean, you did a whole huge Logician's analysis on the birdi apparent= ly before even /bothering/ with the rest of the message.

Then instead of answering the questions by giving /_*examples*_/ = like was asked, you give another analysis, and what I would call a Philosop= her's Response to the third question.. Which, by the way, basically kil= ls the likelihood of the /audience/ /participating/, which, seeing as it= 9;s in the acronym, is, you know, kind of the point. (Another point being t= hat it's for Beginner's. The reason it's on the Beginner's = list.)

And t= hen you say you the format of this APE, which by the way is the same the or= iginal set, is better, because chatters use IRC. APEs are not and never wer= e about "chatting". Obviously a chat room (IRC) is for chatting, = while a forum thread (Lojban, Lojban for Beginner's , etc.) is for long= -term discussion. I was asking about the category. The originals were thing= s like "Write a Lojban haiku, Write some Lojban proverbs, Write a Lojb= an greeting that doesn't involve coi/co'o, i.e. translations of thi= ngs like "Good Morning!".

P.S. I don't care if the terms I u= sed to describe sections of your missive are accurate, and I know they aren= 't technical. That's what (most) everything you write looks like to= me, and my opinion is my opinion. Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I = don't, but that's neither here nor there right now, and if you woul= d like to debate with me my response, I am willing in a new topic on main.<= br>

I was not trying to be dismissive. I like the= question. I think it is very well motivated, and that answering it is very= illuminating for any that don't already know the answer. Nevertheless = I think such an answer exists, which makes it a "closed" question= , perhaps more fitting for an interactive lesson than a fully open-ended ac= tivity.

My reasoning is as follows. The difference between your first bridi and= the {na} version of your second bridi is quite clean, I think, and in fact= it is a nice example of the precision you can get with negation in Lojban.= In English, while "he didn't tell the truth" doesn't nec= essarily imply that he told something that wasn't the truth, it so stro= ngly suggests it that if you didn't mean that, you would probably need = to specify this explicitly. I think Lojban, if not in the language then in = its culture, tries to avoid such inherent biases to a significant extent, g= etting sharp distinctions like the one I described as a result.

Sorry for screwing this up a bit.

mi'e la latro&#= 39;a mu'o