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 m0rD44N-00007FC; Thu, 1 Dec 94 07:28 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2959; Thu, 01 Dec 94 07:28:52 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2955; Thu, 1 Dec 1994 07:28:49 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0132; Thu, 1 Dec 1994 06:25:29 +0100 Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 00:18:28 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: to Roberto Ricci, and other Lojban novices X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 901 Lines: 17 While the debates on this list have been abstruse, indeed too abstruse for me to really follow just as much as you, I think they are not going to lead to any fundamental changes. As Roberto said, it is a bit like arguing philosophy, and such arguments are often interminable. Somewhere amidst these discussions, though, I think a few key people are making some progress. the effect will NOT be to change the language, but it will lead to clarifications in how we explain some of these things from the start. The best cure for a too-technical thread is to start a less abstruse one. Since more than 1/2 the readership would be listed in my books as Lojban novices since they have never publically posted text. any question that you have as a novice is equally as valuable, if not more so, than the very technical discussions. Ask some simple questions, so we can have some simple answers. lojbab