From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jan 23 07:20:46 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:20:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JHhPC-0003FA-6d for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:20:46 -0800 Received: from express.cec.wustl.edu ([128.252.21.16]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JHhP7-0003Ej-5u for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:20:45 -0800 Received: from grid.cec.wustl.edu (grid.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.20.97]) by express.cec.wustl.edu (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m0NFKHGX022370; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:20:17 -0600 (CST) Received: by grid.cec.wustl.edu (Postfix, from userid 29287) id 9A8F168040; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:20:12 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grid.cec.wustl.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902806803F; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:20:12 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:20:12 -0600 (CST) From: adam@wustl.edu To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: zo .e'e In-Reply-To: <97f5058c0801221740n27fa9667ibdde79f2bc08f712@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <20080105225008.k2wyw47jywwowc44@webmail.ixkey.info> <925d17560801060549r667c5c87kcdbf542852bce09d@mail.gmail.com> <20080107141153.pki44f5eassogwc4@webmail.ixkey.info> <925d17560801071444k71b98c50h38879b1c9451ba3e@mail.gmail.com> <97f5058c0801221740n27fa9667ibdde79f2bc08f712@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LRH 882 2007-12-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 282 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: adam@wustl.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Penguino wrote: > However the official definitions are somewhat vague; what is "competence" > and "constraint"? They need to be clarified, definitely. That's the whole purpose of the byfy. But that doesn't mean they should be replaced with completely different definitions based very vaguely on keyword similarity and trying to make patterns where none existed before. > Furthermore, nothing is really lost, as the feeling of > "competence" would be [.e'ese'i] under the new definitions. First of all, I consider self-exhortation to be completely different from competence. One is about will to do something, the other is ability. Secondly, the big difference is that the change would alter the meaning of existing text, in a way that is not backwards compatible. That sort of change should not be taken lightly at all. I'm getting off topic, so I'll stop ranting, but I just wanted to bring it up. -- Adam Lopresto System Administrator Engineering IT, Washington University