From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:51:50 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 11 May 1993 16:01:39 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7329; Tue, 11 May 93 16:00:57 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 2384; Tue, 11 May 93 15:13:46 EST Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 15:10:52 EDT Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: TECH: xo'e X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch X-From-Space-Date: Tue May 11 11:10:52 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: We discussed the xo'e proposal at Lojban conversation group last night, and Nora finally got a chance to hear about it. She was underwhelmed, to say the least. She pointed out that xo'e phraseology is not useful in creating a lujvo incorporating the altered semantics that one seeks by using it. Since someone usually will be using xo'e to (we suspect) pose some variant philosophy about what a concept involves, they would likely want to use that variant concept productively in tanru, and eventually in lujvo. Thus, if you want to build a family of words about things that are made but have no maker or which have no source material (or words based on teleportation - klama without the route), you will end up having to make a lujvo using some non-xo'e method to suggest the place-deletion. Nora then questioned why people wouldn't just do this from the start, and make the lujvo right away. I suspect that Nora is right, but that xo'e may have some use for nonce place structure modification. lujvo that delete places are going to probably be less clear as to their place structures than xo'e fiddling would be. Nora accepted this, so I guess the attitude here in Fairfax is summed up best as skeptical tolerance %^).