From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:45:26 2010 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list Date: Thu Dec 7 12:33:39 1995 From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 38: lambda via new selma'o CEhU X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 7 12:33:39 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: >> 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. No one has found much of a use for it in MEX, because no one has found much use yet for MEX. > 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. 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. The vast majority of the community will not even START to learn the language until we STOP changing the language by prescription. lojbab