From sentto-44114-3459-962967361-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Fri Jul 07 10:54:11 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 15623 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2000 10:54:10 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 7 Jul 2000 10:54:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 10720 invoked by uid 40001); 7 Jul 2000 10:56:03 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 10717 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2000 10:56:03 -0000 Received: from hh.egroups.com (208.50.144.88) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 7 Jul 2000 10:56:03 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-3459-962967361-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.36] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 07 Jul 2000 10:56:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 1439 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2000 10:56:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Jul 2000 10:56:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-5.cais.net) (205.252.14.75) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Jul 2000 10:56:00 -0000 Received: from bob (ppp46.net-A.cais.net [205.252.61.46]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e67AtwV39107; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 06:55:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lojbab@lojban.org) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000707064942.00b0b430@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 To: "And Rosta" , lojban@egroups.com In-Reply-To: References: From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 06:55:55 -0400 Subject: RE: [lojban] Bringing it about that Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit And Rosta wrote: > > From: pycyn@aol.com > > Sent: 13 April 2000 10:02 > > > > The start is to Lojban "John made me hit him," ... > >I read this as a correct argument against (overzealous, overfastidious) >sumti-raising, and the followup messages from Jorge &, eventually, Lojbab >appear to concur. Was that the final consensus? I ask because Lojban >Central & associated pedagogues have traditionally made a big fuss about >so-called sumti-raising, which struck me as bogus. I therefore wonder >whether what John wd call its bogosity has now been recognized by the >politburo. I dunno, since I don't remember reading this post by pc (not to say that I didn't - I just don't remember it). If I responded to something later, I responded to that later post alone. As for recognizing bogosity, it isn't entirely clear what position you find bogus, so I cannot say, but I don't recall changing my position on anything pertaining to sumti-raising in recent months. I make a big fuss about sumti-raising because it is a good pedagogical tool for getting people to think about what they are trying to say and getting out of malglico habits. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Remember four years of good friends, bad clothes, explosive chemistry experiments. http://click.egroups.com/1/5532/4/_/17627/_/962967358/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com