From xod@sixgirls.org Tue Jun 12 20:43:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 03:43:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 15336 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 03:43:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 03:43:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 03:43:57 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5D3huq20963 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:43:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:43:55 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals In-Reply-To: <20010612203249.H14438@digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7906 On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 09:20:08PM -0500, Richard Todd wrote: > > Craig wrote: > > > > > > Here's my $.02. > > > Words in [square brackets] in the examples are for clarification and are not > > > part of the translation. > > > > > > MEEK LLAMA, OUI? > > > > > {sections A through I elided} > > > > ...or we can just learn that > > > > "Beginning of sentence" = world-building/no assertion/whatever you call > > it > > > > "anywhere else" = assertion of truth. > > > > Its appeal is that it is so straightforward. It doesn't try to cover > > all the known uses, but I don't see it as less expressive. I cannot say > > so for sure because I can't express much of anything in lojban as of > > yet. I agree with the above. I cannot (be bothered to) get my head around rules A through I. The above two simple principles make me feel good inside, but all the other schemes I see feel ugly. At this point, barring serious issues, it is the way I will be using attitudinals. Breaking with old usage is a problem, but getting a powerful language is more important to me. I can find some minor bugs with it, but I am more interested in being able to express myself (to myself and others) than creating a new programming language. I fear the perl-like backgrounds of many of you are imposing a corrupting influence. Lojban is not a computer language; a human is not an interpreter/compiler. Remember that elegance includes simplicity. > > That's actually exactly (one of) my proposal. > > It breaks normal usage of xu, though. > Does it really? > -Robin > > -- > http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. > le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno > je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/ > > To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!