From lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxC2sKLeBBoEqGzktg@googlegroups.com Fri Apr 16 10:03:09 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f141.google.com ([209.85.210.141]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O2owa-0007Le-S1; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:03:09 -0700 Received: by yxe5 with SMTP id 5sf2044898yxe.2 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:02:58 -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:received:message-id:date :from:user-agent: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 :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=Ly2HjvOUz/dIyWhjBdbHUuXu2cJSmDzhI9Pl+FGaHzA=; b=g1tjWmX9Oj9xrBZbA4I4SnZVHY+A2DKBg1Xcv9MsQmC77oXmZ31D6KFZ798kE/Df22 95WTV0j65aKem/atVOfwSN/yNCLNV8moBC0gWUslmCd5XO9aQ45n547WC9dfDbLghuKk wXEdzZISu1SVYH8zYy2oa9i0xTL92HOnzPMuc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :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 :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=T/IXypX9jDHn2B523fPjUh1LjNRSZkQ5vRMnSSrJo6ZR57q6DVxJARHEZPEUzYOUFL tc+XMXuKCmfehu1ANqbaA0X9Hu7KYF70kBVa2B2FAXtwqwOUkAmc/6WmoLE2dnNI5m8S zzVOw1D/uXZeEydNCj2Mj101GprgcuwRbedbY= Received: by 10.91.91.11 with SMTP id t11mr492188agl.58.1271437366172; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:02:46 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.64.79 with SMTP id b57ls1047028wed.2.p; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:02:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.86.199 with SMTP id w49mr176419wee.6.1271437364083; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:02:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.86.199 with SMTP id w49mr176418wee.6.1271437364021; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:02:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f51.google.com (mail-ww0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id p33si3456986wba.7.2010.04.16.10.02.42; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:02:43 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.51; Received: by wwb34 with SMTP id 34so1240310wwb.38 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:02:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.155.208 with SMTP id j58mr240205wek.228.1271437362896; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:02:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.67] (87-194-76-9.bethere.co.uk [87.194.76.9]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t27sm22354696wbc.17.2010.04.16.10.02.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:02:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BC89830.2040002@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:02:40 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) 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> <4BC72C43.7030108@gmail.com> <4BC745FE.2050108@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: <4BC745FE.2050108@lojban.org> X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.51 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com 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: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Robert LeChevalier, On 15/04/2010 17:59: > And Rosta wrote: >> What *is* relevant to discussion on Lojban list is the simple >> recognition that because Lojban fails goals (b) and (c) of >> logical-languagehood, it is unreasonable to insist on >> logical-languagehood being a continuing Lojban design goal in the >> specification of the the mission of the BPFK. > > Which is one reason that has not been part of the mission of the BPFK. > Their mission is to define the language that is. Robin quite rightly got fed up with the old BPFK mission definition, and published a manifesto that included his preferred language design goals, which seemed (not just to me) to include logical-languagehood. >> Communicatively you can manage without it by using "le du" instead. >> The rationale for "zo'e'e" was in the context of the suggested formal >> periphrastic definitions of gadri in terms of KOhA NOI constructions. > > If you can manage it with something else, why propose a different > definition? Someone is looking to add elegance to what apparently > already works, when elegance wasn't necessarily something we were trying > for (as opposed to packing as many critical distinctions as possible > into as few words as possible, where there is disagreement now as to > what distinctions are critical, but there wasn't in 1988). If you had replied to the actual discussion, I would be more confident that you had made some effort to read it and understand the point of the discussion. Your questions don't seem apposite to the actual discussion. --And. -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.