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 m0r2gJ2-00005YC; Wed, 2 Nov 94 16:04 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0101; Wed, 02 Nov 94 16:05:00 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0098; Wed, 2 Nov 1994 16:05:00 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2657; Wed, 2 Nov 1994 15:01:43 +0100 Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 11:33:56 -0700 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: "any" FAQ needed? X-To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1242 Lines: 24 > So my opinion could well >be a mere rephrasing of ideas already stated by somebody else or, more >probably, simply miss the point. It is a lot to read through. What if we created a FAQ that described our collective thinking on the question, and our discussion could then focus on changing details of the document, until we reach consensus on it. Someone could post it every few weeks with up-to-date changes. That would make it a little easier to focus, and allow other people to participate. John Clifford's definitions would be a good start, along with some less-technical amplification. What we put together here might be a good resource when the logic paper is written for the reference grammar. I realize that sounds like a lot of work for a topic we would all probably like to see resolved once and for all, but the question will come up again and again if new people don't have a single cohesive place they can read our reasoning and conclusions. Imagine the chore of going back and reading through all the old postings on any, opaqueness, etc! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Bogart cbogart@quetzal.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~