From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Jul 26 13:33:58 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:33:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MVAPu-0008Ij-0u for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:33:58 -0700 Received: from web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.118]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MVAPq-0008Hb-81 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:33:57 -0700 Received: (qmail 76739 invoked by uid 60001); 26 Jul 2009 20:33:47 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1248640427; bh=WK8VzO7YtghYKZxcxSFkMJACR7ZcQPCzYOvs8tkC6QM=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=VBDiHRv0wGRdBQI97RDHpTUN+XDo8ewLK/3f1467bEOz4+J/dtfIU17SYcJwA9vGJ7Hbrady9sx9+yqx+xzKwhlz4mKZmGd/dxbCeoPxWObhModUKxAPUYBIu1iU4f0FMDKMctoacCu1VZa6FQjQcFB2tZ9bA0ypQXDl9yYKD48= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=aA4dJkUr5o9ESrvGC6vba7sg2H/GXzi3aidJNAe2qZwVkFC6shRQlnJRwwUtuIO6nEVVGaZiG2Qrhy/tG6Qs7hbC8TqHjqrwj9P/d+UcR7AShqxtPJkz+8mQR9qIAVKzFahgtQOp153FHPwt1ssShPwYlERLdiSEZ59ZTMYyNbU=; Message-ID: <870819.75498.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: KhMqs2gVM1min5m1F2dGL4ck6xZpHgurtU9tbsLFnnCtWR6FxIRMgtgk3eH7ir5zxU6vWEFWrczyDwO8kXe_j0z48Iaa.EGks_5VKeCU5PaUnHKCFyNce2T4p3sxYfhPO3qJiXgLU_xPBmnuEDWOUZr6m7nMDCTyef35XqxXEKBQUt2igYkrWlTCsxLAC3vNTGi2hdNbVuyeg29Wk6zgDMEIQA.7CzT__.jOi7AmYadqEqvy9mg8hLEgKsJ92Ukddn5BGWfgdZMgi4aQhkL6TE13uJoj1I08JSbkz5vlmZl9b0Yqij1kZfoQk9D5NdOWp3Our7D3tAYXictjMTNjqd0iQjDgRtdLKj1kFPZF Received: from [24.207.224.145] by web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:33:47 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1357.22 YahooMailWebService/0.7.289.10 References: <126025.43169.qm@web50408.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <228475.79712.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A6B38D4.80606@lojban.org> <330956.40087.qm@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A6C641E.2020104@lojban.org> Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:33:47 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: Philosophical differences. To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <4A6C641E.2020104@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 15805 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list ----- Original Message ---- From: Bob LeChevalier To: lojban-list@lojban.org Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 9:11:42 AM Subject: [lojban] Re: Philosophical differences. John E Clifford wrote: > But English never does anything officially, since there is no official to do it. And if there were, the controversy level would be much higher. Lord, yes! But there would be a tribunal and -- most importantly -- those licensed to appear before that tribunal to decide issues. Lojban has the tribunal but not (fortunately, perhaps) the lawyers. So the argument can go on forever -- and does. People have unofficially added gismu and cmavo to Lojban, and deleting them unofficially consists simply of nt using them. It is the desire to change the official list that creates controversy. Adding new gismu doesn't matter much in the great scheme of things, since all gismu are the same to a parser, but new cmavo can really screw it up. However, if one catches on, it is easy to catch the parser up (relatively, I suppose). Has there ever been a serious proposal for one in the quotidian world? > Does anyone feel the need to learn all the words of Lojban? Maybe > all the gismu and a lot of the cmavo, but probably not even that at > the start. "all the gismu and a lot of the cmavo" is precisely why that is the set that is baselined. I am always reminded of the shepherd in Parque sur Oise (or some such name), who admitted that he had never in his 87 years used the pluperfect subjunctive (on which the French teacher usually spent the better part of a week). As noted, I won't ever use -- except for this example, perhaps -- the gismu for ruthenium nor the apparatus for constructing emotion indicators, and I am unlikely to run into somebody who does -- to me at least. Just like I never use the word 'ruthenium' nor know the current 16-year-old's way to say 'Fuck off' (other than that, which seems always to be an option). No, they don't need it at the start, but those of us who reached that point of learning those words have a substantial investment, and thus strongly resist change. Well, the proposals all seem to be of two sorts: dropping a gismu, which means that you have wasted a small amount of effort -- which you may well have anyhow, if you never use or encounter the word, or adding a gismu, which requires a small amount of effort -- if you think it is a word you will use when you don't have a dictionary handy. New cmavo in existing categories also is not much of a problem, nor is dropping them; only new categories create problems, and even they are more technical than personal (unless a new set of traps opens up) Certainly nothing that someone for whom the rewards are great would mind taking on. lojbab 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. 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.