From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Sep 29 18:16:05 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1EL9VD-0002zo-9s for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:15:55 -0700 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.200]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1EL9VA-0002zg-Iv for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:15:55 -0700 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 71so73910wri for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:15:51 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=dDB0H3peUMvucDuWOUbKW5DDvMKRcVYf6w4uyjHDJ80PsncyZsCMlKa4dvUjasb+C4/kky9qnmBhWBLFqf9/DP6gxFXstsmWRlLbR2MrLBGLX6SaBj4elSvsp3+S31VZGV7YeI6JHQ/Q2zXbGVgFq3FNbzFfA7SP1m0rYmJjj4I= Received: by 10.54.13.55 with SMTP id 55mr391159wrm; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.66.3 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560509291815i425ba5e5g3f02c03b19c13426@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:15:51 -0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo podcast In-Reply-To: <20050929235438.80754.qmail@web81303.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d175605092916122864d5bf@mail.gmail.com> <20050929235438.80754.qmail@web81303.mail.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 10681 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 9/29/05, John E Clifford wrote: > Well, you probably have an advantage on me for > doing history, since a large part of my hard > drive that Linux took out was my records for > those earlier discussions. Everything relevant is publicly accessible on the internet (which is not to say that it is always easy to find) except for that recent private exchange we had. I don't have much kept in my computer, all of my writing in or about Lojban is out there in cyberspace. The advantage I may have is that if we are discussing what I did or did not do, or how I used certain word, or which word I used for something, then I have a better chance of recalling correctly. If we were discussing your usage you'd have the advantage. > Not that it actually > matters in the long run whether it was as > accepted or used as I remember. the discussions > on which it was based and the formulations of are > as they were presented at various times in our > more recent discussions -- where it was described (described by you, yes, never by me) > as the previous standard in various ways and was > clearly not CLL. And, of course, the whole is > laid out in the cited wiki page. But did that page ever constitute a consensus of more than one? > > I can't "go back" to a place I never left. > > Well, I will not cite personal conversations, Please do cite whatever you want from me, I don't remember saying anything in that discussion I wouldn't say in public. I'm quite certain have not changed my position. >but > they did leave me with the impression that you > were now falling back to the smaller "species" > interpretation. I don't really know what the 'smaller "species" interpretation' is, so I can't comment on that. I don't think I have ever understood the labels you keep coming up with for my position, but it is you who keeps changing the labels, not my position that changes. > Even that was a bit hard to get > out of the official description but was a > possibility, but the Mr.Mr. interp is harder > still. And -- at least in the version that was > most recently going round -- it does prevent the > carefully constructed system that allowed {lo} > finally to be workable in at least some kind of > logic. You don't have to use that way of describing things if it doesn't sit well with you. Your best bet is to ignore all descriptions and concentrate on the usage and the examples. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.