From ragnarok@pobox.com Wed Jun 13 17:21:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 14 Jun 2001 00:21:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 62276 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2001 00:21:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Jun 2001 00:21:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.246) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Jun 2001 00:21:47 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.34] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A3AC55F100B2; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:22:04 -0400 Reply-To: To: "Robin Lee Powell" , Subject: RE: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:21:47 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20010613170448.U14438@digitalkingdom.org> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7960 >It _is_ comprehensible to you that others could understand your POV and >still not agree, right? Given that we're disagreeing about what the best way to express yourself is, and the Book's way, as more clearly stated by la xorxes., still works just fine, everyone is claiming their way is somehow 'better' when lojban. is trying to be easy to learn and unambiguous, I will see a point in other ideas as soon as they are A. simpler or B. less ambiguous. You say this is ambiguous? Show me any sentence that is ambiguous under the rules layed out in the book and I will accept that it is ambiguous. Until then, I can understand a controversy if we disagree about needing to be simple and unambiguous, but unless I'm missing something huge I don't think there is one. Now I could still be missing something huge, but it seems to me that the simplest unambiguous way is to do it as we always have. Show me a complexity or an ambiguity and this whole discussion will make sense. But every way proposed since the thing was started is more complex, not less, in that it is harder to remember all the rules. And a lot of them contradict usage, and IMHO the usage so far is how it is because IT WORKS. Now as for your question, of course it is comprehensible. But one of us must be wrong, and while it could be me (and the book) I see no reason to believe it is. If such a reason presents itself, I will calmly shut up. Until you have one, why don't you do the same? --la kreig.daniyl 'segu temci fa le bavli gi mi'o ba renvi lo purci .i ga la fonxa cu janbe gi du mi' -la djimis.BYFet xy.sy. gubmau ckiku cmesanji: 0x5C3A1E74