From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:46:19 2010 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list Date: Sun Dec 10 11:04:49 1995 From: ucleaar Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 38: lambda via new selma'o CEhU X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Sun Dec 10 11:04:49 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: <4Ls5aEGyMrK.A.bFG.7u0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> > >> Because lojbab noted that it could be brought into NU by changing > >> "du'u" to "le du'u". > >!! Okay, yes - after all, it is true that it could be brought into NU. > >But why was it thought a good thing (bearing in mind that it very much > >isn't)? Can we move it back, please? [I will assume the answer is that > >the milk is split & it's too late to mop it up.] > Well, yes, it is. But If not then what would you put in the x2 of djuno? > We have USES for du'u in NU. ???? In the x2 of djuno would be put any sumti valsi referring to a bridi (such as {duu} in selmao DUhU (or LU) which takes a bridi and yields a suivla). I know of no uses for duu in NU. > > Also please heed his injunction to make haste slowly, because I can't > > keep up with Lojban list at present, & if even I can't then probably > > noone but Jorge, who's a bit ubermenschy when it comes to digesting > > terabytes of email a day, can. > The making haste that is going on has NOTHING to do with Lojban List. > We have promised to get a book done. WE have someone who is committed > to helping us get it publsihed if we don't allow it to be delayed yet > again by endless debtes over minor design points. Cowan AND lojbab are > tired of promising and not delivering, tired of being stuck in a rut of > trying to write books while technical issues are being debated. You should just baseline everything and write the books. Those who want the books asap would rather have the books than have more flaws expunged from and more improvements made to the language. Those who wish for more flaws to be expunged and more improvements to be made will inevitably evolve new dialects of Lojban different from that prescribed by Lojban Central. At present noone is satisfied. > We have claimed that the language design has been done for a long time, > and yet everytime we allow ourselves to be drawn into another change > proposal debate, we are tacitly admitting that it is not. I don't think you're admitting that the design has not been done. You're admitting that the language is faulty. It is inevitable that it will be faulty, however much further work is done on it. Therefore you might as well declare a baseline and write the books. > The vast majority of the community will not even START to learn the > language until we STOP changing the language by prescription. There hasn't been a significant change since the rafsi revision. So either these people are put off by the threat of further change, or they're using the illusion of ongoing change as an excuse. --- And