From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Sep 29 14:33:59 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 81762 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2005 21:33:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m27.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Sep 2005 21:33:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 2005 21:33:58 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1EL62P-0000MC-S9 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:33:58 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1EL60s-0000LC-RL; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:32:26 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1EL60a-0000L1-BK for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:32:04 -0700 Received: from web81309.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.84]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1EL60Y-0000Kj-0r for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:32:04 -0700 Received: (qmail 65992 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Sep 2005 21:32:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050929213200.65990.qmail@web81309.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.88.34.50] by web81309.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:32:00 PDT Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:32:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <925d1756050929125558df82fe@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-archive-position: 10678 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo podcast X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=R2ZZnOzbDvUUpozfnvdA7oHARxVs77jrISCRFqzgHdYknwop9A X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25063 --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 9/29/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > The technical details of prelo -- > > admittedly a new term since I got tired of > > writing "the previously acccepted version of > > {lo}" > > I don't think there was any "previously > accepted version > of {lo}" other than CLL-lo. While may be open to dispute, the version of {lo} I was presenting as being that stage is not something that has been publicaly available for a long time and has been laid out repeatedly in discussions with you -- which is the central point here. > > but one introduced with what was in context > > an adequate explanation -- were put up on the > > wiki and xorxes commented on that paper > > > (http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Lojban%20Formulae) > > in some detail. > > I do remember commenting on that page. I don't > think > anyone else gave any indication of having read > it. I don't either, but then no one else ever got into thse disputes, so -- aside from a possibly uninformed vote in BPFK -- no relevant problem arose. > > xorxes was active in the > > creation of prelo and at one time seemed to > say > > he was using it (though I suspect that what > he > > was using was an early version of xorlo -- > they > > hard to tell apart except in details that may > not > > turn up for a while). > > Before xorlo, I used {lo'e} as the generic > gadri, but {lo} > always as in CLL {su'o lo}. I didn't go through > any > intermediate stage. Perhaps what you are > remembering > is my use of {lo'e}? Maybe, though it has been {lo} rather than {lo'e} for quite some time now. I thought you were responsible for the shift, but, as I said, it may be that you were already moving toward xorlo without mentioning (prehaps even without noticing) the change. > > Indeed, my recollection is that the shift to > > prelo took place before or soon after CLL > > appeared (it existed in various forms for > some > > time before publication). > > I, on the other hand, don't think there ever > was a shift > away from CLL-lo to something that could be > called prelo, > unless you are talking of my use of {lo'e}. Then I wonder what it was that was being discussed in all those early gadri exchanges, which appear to me to be about {lo} in essentially the pattern I am adhering to. > (Certainly there were people misusing CLL-lo > all the time, > but those were mistakes, not conscious usage of > a > different proposal.) Well, from a strict point of view, you have been misusing {lo} for years now, but, like the people in the discussions I have been in, you were usually aware and explicit about using -- and propsoing -- a deviant system. > > {lo broda} = {su'o lo ro broda} goes back to > > Loglan (before 1975, probably before 1960, > but I > > can't check now). > > It probably dates from the start of Lojban. > It's unlikely > to be from Loglan because in Loglan there is > nothing > like CLL-lo. Loglan's {lo} is basically the > same as > xorlo (as in gavagai and Mr Rabbit). I threw away my Loglan books a long time ago, but do remember editing pepers for The Loglanist which went basically like the arguments we have been having here over the years. At one point JCB did write a murky paper on Loglan {lo} which seemed to come out with the gavagai explanation -- but no one took it to seriously and continued doing what they had done before, which was as close to the {lo} I am backing as could be done within the blinders of a positive definition of {lo}. I hope, by the bye, that now that we have come up with a functioning interpretation of xorlo, you are not now going to change your wish list yet again (in this case, go back to an earlier one which got weeded out because it introduced apparently contradictory elements into the whole). The sense in which {lo} has anything to do with Mr. Rabbit or with gavagai is remote from the origins of those concepts, to the point that bringing them up introduces more smoke than light. xorlo is a disaster enough for a logical language, without trying to bring back yet more remote metaphysical muckery -- with, as usual -- no benefit in any area. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.