From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sun Oct 06 08:49:06 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 06 Oct 2002 08:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailbox-11.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.111])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 17yDeN-0001HK-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 06 Oct 2002 08:48:59 -0700
Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-70-140.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.70.140])
	by mailbox-11.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B5281EF04
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Sun,  6 Oct 2002 17:44:49 +0200 (MEST)
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 16:46:29 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMEEGAGKAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20021005203000.GA13575@allusion.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
X-archive-position: 1945
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

Jordan:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 08:15:07PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > Jordan:
> > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 02:51:51PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> [...]
> > > > The (non)availability of semantically equivalent lujvo is hardly ever a
> > > > criterion for evaluating the utility of cmavo.
> > >
> > > You have done little to support this viewpoint except state it.  I
> > > don't agree with it.
> >
> > I claim that most cmavo can be paraphrased by brivla without change
> > in meaning.
> >
> > If you don't accept that claim, we can discuss it further on Jboske.
>
> I challenge you to make a brivla which does ".i" and "zo'u", or "le" and
> "lo".
>
> *Some* cmavo, primarily the ones in UI which just freely modify
> things could be easily reorganized as a brivla, and in practice are
> in fact stated that way frequently.  (You see gleki leza'i do broda
> as much as .ui do broda).  But in general I think this claim is
> just patently false, unless you are also intending major grammar
> changes at the same time (in which case no one should be listening
> to you anyway).
>
> I'm not on jboske, and don't intend to be.

I am convinced that Jboske is the appropriate forum for discussing
these matters, and a willingness to be on Jboske is a necessary
sign of willingness to enter discussion in a suitably cooperative
and collaborative frame of mind. I am in fact slightly relieved
that you don't intend to be on Jboske, and presumably you will
likewise be relieved that I intend to do my part in purefying
Lojban list of jboske matters.

--And.