From pycyn@aol.com Wed Jul 04 11:13:44 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 4 Jul 2001 18:13:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 71649 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2001 18:13:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Jul 2001 18:13:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Jul 2001 18:13:42 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.6a.10402095 (4406) for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:13:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6a.10402095.2874b6ce@aol.com> Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:13:34 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Tentative summary on Attitudinals To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_6a.10402095.2874b6ce_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8404 --part1_6a.10402095.2874b6ce_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/4/2001 1:58:38 AM Central Daylight Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > na jinga .i so'ida pu pante bau le glico .i mi fapro da .i bai mi farvi le > glico zumdau le lojbo zumdau .i da po'u na'ebo la xorxes. co'u tcidu ja'e > le kamfliba .i xy. punai xlura mi soi vo'a vo'e le ka jinvi le du'u frica > zo ui lu mi gleki li'u .i .uiru'e .a'ucu'i ku'i pe'i mi jinga ki'u le du'u > xy. xa'o darlu > > .i .eicai le pante je darlu troci cu casnu bau la lojban .i le zu'o pensi > bau le glico cu selfesti le kamcfipu xanri seldau .i mu'a le ka bebna > krici le dumfrica cu selsarcu le glico valsi smuni > > .i ju'osai mi cajeba pilno zo ui le smuni be lu mi gleki .i ganai da cusku > bau le glico gi mi toljundi .i ku'i ru'a da na tcidu dei > Well, I did (the sore tooth syndrome). And I can only say that xod is wrong about most things he claims or implies. I can do this with a clear conscience since he is already ignoring everything I say (or so he vowed) and thus he willl not be further offended (though it is one of the reasons that he gets things wrong, even after making allowances for what he actually says (I doubt for example that he really thinks that something evolved into an English discussion from a Lojban one). One of the reasons for arguing in English, as a I say, is that we can spend some time on the arguments, not on their formulation. Were I xorxes, I would have stopped arguing with xod simply because he never said anything germane except to repeat the same point (of which he admitted he did not understand a key word) and which he never backed up. In English one can go on a bit, developing new points, modifying positions as the need arises -- carry on a discussion, in short. Some day we will do this in Lojban -- xorxes already does and xod may get there yet -- but for now, for most of us, English works better once we need to work things out as well as pass them on. so, I don't think that -- xorxes aside -- the discussion has evolved from English to Lojban either (what I assume xod meant) nor do I see xod as being a particularly compelling factor in that, aside from the fact that xorxes regularly responds to Lojban in Lojban, even to "Lojban" in Lojban. It does not appear that the topics that are raised in English are confusednessly imaginary (where do those {ka} come from?) and it is certainly clear that xod has not won this particular battle (though he clings on tenaciously enough for me to qualify the claim that it is agreed that {ui} and {mi gleki} are different -- a tentativeness I do not extend to the difference itself). Nor have the discussions been a waste, though they have not led to a successful clear outcome yet. --part1_6a.10402095.2874b6ce_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/4/2001 1:58:38 AM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes:

na jinga .i so'ida pu pante bau le glico .i mi fapro da .i bai mi farvi le
glico zumdau le lojbo zumdau .i da po'u na'ebo la xorxes. co'u tcidu ja'e
le kamfliba .i xy. punai xlura mi soi vo'a vo'e le ka jinvi le du'u frica
zo ui lu mi gleki li'u .i .uiru'e .a'ucu'i ku'i pe'i mi jinga ki'u le du'u
xy. xa'o darlu

.i .eicai le pante je darlu troci cu casnu bau la lojban .i le zu'o pensi
bau le glico cu selfesti le kamcfipu xanri seldau .i mu'a le ka bebna
krici le dumfrica cu selsarcu le glico valsi smuni

.i ju'osai mi cajeba pilno zo ui le smuni be lu mi gleki .i ganai da cusku
bau le glico gi mi toljundi .i ku'i ru'a da na tcidu dei

Well, I did (the sore tooth syndrome). And I can only say that xod is wrong
about most things he claims or implies. I can do this with a clear
conscience since he is already ignoring everything I say (or so he vowed) and
thus he willl not be further offended (though it is one of the reasons that
he gets things wrong, even after making allowances for what he actually says
(I doubt for example that he really thinks that something evolved into an
English discussion from a Lojban one).
One of the reasons for arguing in English, as a I say, is that we can spend
some time on the arguments, not on their formulation. Were I xorxes, I would
have stopped arguing with xod simply because he never said anything germane
except to repeat the same point (of which he admitted he did not understand a
key word) and which he never backed up. In English one can go on a bit,
developing new points, modifying positions as the need arises -- carry on a
discussion, in short. Some day we will do this in Lojban -- xorxes already
does and xod may get there yet -- but for now, for most of us, English works
better once we need to work things out as well as pass them on. so, I don't
think that -- xorxes aside -- the discussion has evolved from English to
Lojban either (what I assume xod meant) nor do I see xod as being a
particularly compelling factor in that, aside from the fact that xorxes
regularly responds to Lojban in Lojban, even to "Lojban" in Lojban.
It does not appear that the topics that are raised in English are
confusednessly imaginary (where do those {ka} come from?) and it is certainly
clear that xod has not won this particular battle (though he clings on
tenaciously enough for me to qualify the claim that it is agreed that {ui}
and {mi gleki} are different -- a tentativeness I do not extend to the
difference itself). Nor have the discussions been a waste, though they have
not led to a successful clear outcome yet. --part1_6a.10402095.2874b6ce_boundary--