Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0r0DEr-00006tC; Wed, 26 Oct 94 20:38 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3265; Wed, 26 Oct 94 20:38:32 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3263; Wed, 26 Oct 1994 20:38:30 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8948; Wed, 26 Oct 1994 19:35:26 +0100 Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 18:27:55 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Why haven't we adopted xehe yet? X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 581 Lines: 13 Jorge has defined his "xehe" very clearly, and it has been amply established that it is needed, since noone has come up with a satisfactory alternative, and noone has demonstrated that Jorge is deluded in thinking "xehe" to be necessary. Therefore, how about shifting the debate from the meaning of "any" to reasons for not adopting "xehe"? If noone comes up with a good argument against it (apart from inertia of status quo) - and I see no evidence that anyone will - we can conclude that the matter has been intensively debated and the case for "xehe" is irresistable. --- And