From 3-FvHSwYKBmcQTOGFGQTOGFS.TWLQTOGFSLTTLQJLWTZUX.HTR@groups.bounces.google.com Thu Apr 15 11:33:54 2010 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3-FvHSwYKBmcQTOGFGQTOGFS.TWLQTOGFSLTTLQJLWTZUX.HTR@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1O2Tsr-0005jJ-5D; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:33:54 -0700 Received: by gyd5 with SMTP id 5sf971021gyd.16 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:33:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:received:x-vr-score :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent :x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=84RqwZiZPxnZy4aZX3sH66LITIa0dDbHBbL4kgaidWQ=; b=QSaNGN70bh9YqHil9S68v8Ww3/pXYc8VvDOOQJbXyk2gZw0/8G7Ue+Hc1RcuJurOK4 bF8R3bVtRzMcqw+AI2eez6CVyBHr1qgPJplD68PSL7y05HZGkLSLDmQQezGzIPzEHSNY Z9Lew6KaXRVMzCe3tidQ0ULkQ/U9DsXl/+34g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-vr-score:x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score :message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Qyj9qr4NcTbJt8sYtoxy+ldblidbi6BIEQumHMFjpXaWQBmvdogoJAKx+oQlaIp0M9 B2Lzz5OsAbN8mcAV1u2AeOpiJEHZMnaOprteHtPbKE8TXKNemdTXZBgflNQm6KiQRbPB WNldMGXbEwBR3i+S8rKXfWAcgfR0DEK5ihfTg= Received: by 10.101.151.19 with SMTP id d19mr35071ano.42.1271356408299; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:33:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.149.35 with SMTP id b35ls330339ano.5.p; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:33:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.234.4 with SMTP id g4mr312840anh.39.1271356407540; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:33:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.234.4 with SMTP id g4mr312839anh.39.1271356407380; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:33:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao102.cox.net (eastrmmtao102.cox.net [68.230.240.8]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 17si700523anx.2.2010.04.15.11.33.27; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:33:27 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.8 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.240.8; Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100415183317.IHBW7060.eastrmmtao102.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 14:33:17 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.187.225.124]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id 5uZ41e0082hfrC602uZGGR; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 14:33:16 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=garkv6WxUlWCZxlYffz6yNGlDVHTZyAXTUdcTJEJ4sc= c=1 sm=1 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=lsg66w07okjF3vGJL2g+Jw==:17 a=TUF2PsIS9b4uf94dDIcA:9 a=MR4MByEPyBZ0TZ12JHUA:7 a=jwaKNxr5c3CsSlUjrAUnF-SFU0cA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=U3AT89bzv0EgUpQu:21 a=P341BPHi-f9_nkTe:21 a=lsg66w07okjF3vGJL2g+Jw==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4BC75BDC.3010607@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 14:33:00 -0400 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: {le} in xorlo References: <4BBE188B.8070807@lojban.org> <448505.50300.qm@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201585.79379.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201004132253.05621.phma@phma.optus.nu> <4a02d723-a934-434a-b626-0a3a9fbf803f@u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <4BC741FF.30708@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.8 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: X-Thread-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/33d26e8385fed297 X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/c0fd91dbda701393 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > I don't share your fears, probably because of our different > experiences with the language. >=20 > You started learning Loglan when it was apparently drastically > changing every month (from what you report). No. It wasn't changing all that fast. But it was inevitably changing=20 yet-again, and that was a deterrent to learning for many. > You also went through a > relatively significant change in Lojban, the rafsi reallocation. It wasn't that significant, because only a small percentage of the rafsi=20 were changed, and very few people were at that stage using rafsi=20 constructively (it was in a sense premature to do the analysis with so=20 little usage, but if we had waited any longer, changes wouldn't have=20 been salable). Indeed, those rafsi that had seen significant usage were=20 decided to be off-limits in the reallocation, so that IIRC roughly half=20 the proposals were voted down for that reason alone. gadri, by contrast, affect nearly every Lojban sentence, which is why=20 your proposal to change them met such resistance until us oldie's were=20 promised that it wouldn't significantly change existing text/usage=20 (which made it palatable but harder to understand) > The kind of changes you fear simply do not exist. People rarely see those who drop out because something changed. It=20 shows up when we talk to people who have been active and are no more. I=20 made much more effort to talk to such people in the early years. > Maybe this is thanks to your obstinate conservatism, In part ^%), but obviously it hasn't been me the last 8 years. > maybe only in part thanks to that, but > the "pull the rug under your feet" kind of changes simply don't exist. For Nora, xorlo has been just such a change. She doesn't feel like she=20 understands the language anymore, in some fundamental way. I won't=20 claim it has been for me - you have occasionally, if not often enough,=20 seen me post or respond to something in Lojban. > In fact, all this nonsense about "Are you using xorlo mod 2 or xorlo > mod 1?", if it exists at all, is instigated by comments like yours, > that suggest that something of ponderous magnitude is going on that > one must learn about. Actually, I read that suggestion into Lindar's comment that you=20 responded to, which is why I made the comment. (I had been about to say=20 something entirely different than you said, in response to him.) I=20 repeat the relevant comments: > 2. zo'e !=3D lo. I have no idea where you folks got the idea, but AFAIK > "zo'e" is not "lo broda" or anything like that, it is simply an > unspecified sumti, and therefore we don't need a new sumti "zo'e'e" or > any such thing. It's not a particular unspecified thing, it isn't a > specific unspecified thing, and it's not a thing which really is or > isn't or is called an unspecified thing, it's just an unspecified > sumti. ... > ((Sub-note: If this is wrong, then this is how a non-techy, non- > linguist, non-intelligent audio engineer has perceived how these two > gadri work, and it's clsn/Timo/ARJ that are to blame for teaching me > incorrectly.)) ... > 5. Frankly, I could give less than two shits what some Uni professor's > opinion of Lojban is or what some obnoxious person that I've never > seen on IRC or the mailing list (which leads me to assume they speak > little to no Lojban/haven't studied Lojban and read one article > somebody else wrote and immediately formed an opinion) before thinks > regarding the logical-ness of Lojban, and I think that as soon as we > please the bureaucrats regarding the broken bits of Lojban, we should > stop griping about every little damn thing and ... > Now I shall promptly head back into IRC to have "voi" > explained to me another 20 times and "ce'u" another 200. I read that as someone who is trying to use the language, and is rather=20 fed up with running across academic discussion suggesting that the=20 language should be different than it is. I responded to it, being=20 rather sensitized to the matter after years of leading the community,=20 and attempting to convince such people that the discussion was not a=20 sign of impending change. And xorlo DID "pull the rug from under my=20 feet" with regard to making such reassurances, because it DID result=20 from just such academic discussions about a part of the language that=20 most of us had felt was "good enough". But I've accepted that xorlo is now the status quo, and here we have a=20 discussion that seemed to indicate that xorlo isn't good enough, and you=20 need a new cmavo to make the definition "proper". > I have tried to tell you in as many ways as I > can that nothing of any importance is going on, The volume of discussion the topic generates, is what gives the=20 impression of importance. And it is volume coming from people like you=20 who are respected as experts in the language, which is why the=20 perception can grow that things are more unsettled than they are. That perception about the 1994-1997 discussions that went into CLL's=20 gadri sections were about changes to the language, would have been=20 correct, because xorlo is approved as an override to CLL. Is it an=20 important change? Some say no, but then Robin said it was sufficiently=20 important that people were asking on IRC whether xorlo was being used. > and that you can simply tune out of the whole discussion, I've done that for 12 years. But the discussion goes on, and someone=20 new just complained. I can't tune out people like him who are=20 apparently using the language on IRC. lojbab --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.