From xod@thestonecutters.net Wed Aug 11 16:10:01 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thestonecutters.net ([63.251.19.112] helo=chert.thestonecutters.net) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bv2ED-0005VK-7P for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:09:53 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p78-77.acedsl.com [66.114.78.77]) by chert.thestonecutters.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71E7E14800C for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:46:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <411AA73C.3000803@thestonecutters.net> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:09:48 -0400 From: xod User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.2 (Windows/20040707) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: The Lojban Wikipedia is up References: <200408080634.18420.phma@phma.hn.org> <200408111625.03899.phma@phma.hn.org> <20040811203139.GB30673@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <200408111659.13332.phma@phma.hn.org> <20040811210336.GF30673@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20040811223126.GL30673@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <411AA1D5.6000109@thestonecutters.net> <20040811225013.GN30673@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <411AA485.5010304@thestonecutters.net> <20040811230304.GO30673@chain.digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20040811230304.GO30673@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-archive-position: 8424 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Robin Lee Powell wrote: >On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 06:58:13PM -0400, xod wrote: > > >>Robin Lee Powell wrote: >> >> >>>On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 06:46:45PM -0400, xod wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Robin Lee Powell wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>I still think ralcku is asinine, though. mutmi'i I mind a lot less >>>>>than I used to, although I think it's rarely the best choice for >>>>>"software" (too broad). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Lujvo should focus primarily on use-function -- how it appears to >>>>the user -- as opposed to technical precision. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>As long as two lujvo are more-or-less the same number of syllables, I >>>*utterly* disagree. >>> >>> >>It's like saying a pen is "a small cylinder with one messy end" >>instead of "like a pencil, only with ink". One is more literal, but >>the other is a whole lot more useful. >> >> > >"Technical precision" and "literalism" are not the same thing. I find >the latter definition much more technically precise than the former >becase it encodes more information about what the object does (i.e. it >has more ancillary places that are relevant). > > Your definition of "technical precision" is based on what it "does", yet you vehemently disagree that "use-function" should take precedence over technical precision. I can only conclude that you imagine a huge gap between "what it does" and "use-function". What do you have in mind? -- Which of the two millionaire Yale Bonesmen do you support? If you believe in an aggressive foreign policy, vote for the one who avoided combat service. If you're against military adventurism, then vote for the man who is proud of his service in an imperialist war.