From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Mon Apr 5 10:56:36 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 5 Apr 1993 23:49:58 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7185; Mon, 05 Apr 93 23:50:36 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 9069; Mon, 05 Apr 93 23:50:21 EST Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 17:56:36 PDT Reply-To: fschulz@pyramid.com Sender: Lojban list From: fschulz@PYRAMID.COM Subject: lujvo paper X-To: lojban list To: Erik Rauch Status: OR Message-ID: la Nick ciska >[Re {ne'e}] > >}Since Nick has done the bulk of the place structure work that will appear in >}the first dictionary, I am bound by necessity to defer to him on the use of >}a cmavo in analyzing place structures. If, as he says, the usage is only >}pedagogical, probably the better approach is to NOT add the cmavo to the >}language and NOT use it in the place structure paper, but instead use a >}different pedagogical method to explain what is happening when you eliminate >}a place. > >Fair enough. Since I never intended an official cmavo out of it anyway, I'll >reword the paper appropriately, to avoid using a xo'e. > I found that rewriting a lujvo using xo'e to show place structure removal to be a clever pedagogical device. Seeing a xo'e expansion gave me a flash of understanding that no amount of explanatory text could ever achieve. The xo'e usage was my favorite part of the paper and I strongly protest removing xo'e. This one usage is enough to justify giving xo'e an official cmavo. Removing xo'e from the lujvo paper would be a major loss for future lojan learners. Please reconsider. -- Frank Schulz ( fschulz@pyramid.com )