From lojban+bncCK30vq5WEK7Wk-kEGgQXqLFg@googlegroups.com Wed Jan 05 14:05:47 2011 Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PabUF-0006u6-NN; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:05:47 -0800 Received: by pzk9 with SMTP id 9sf4190227pzk.16 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:05:38 -0800 (PST) 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:date:from:to:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-disposition; bh=g/AG6KdNtaB2t/w3vQBYXdXiIDkjQD+BqJOaDhok6ik=; b=NOSJy798PYO15LTN+tubM4KmpQJgSm33X+0JDVUoEUodYHlqcqT+ytKvWmaYXSgZW5 Jrf/ysDm1rY2QwnymHyRxQGQXZ+Z5bZkxR1K6WGQBWvdxuUN7+rSjbPcPDmKUGvUj1da KdjnrldD/CpNl2WigA2eE95dIviSjTk5d6gIA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-disposition; b=3Ej/SVrr2iyjeYQh+hdv06uyEVRmCqtxlTF5H6Tk0MqMLK820Zr4wA0jNQN4ZXUnds uE0UezUef+cG+I7MNLqH8yvKbvTxfhUjc1F80TNHrOshG/aznNwxwA8SWzF8A02EzVQJ /SMLIr34lTPGuPpYFoULSHNxAwx7vkqGhsY2I= Received: by 10.142.150.13 with SMTP id x13mr22367wfd.6.1294265134665; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:05:34 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.249.41 with SMTP id w41ls27842122wfh.1.p; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:05:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.143.5.8 with SMTP id h8mr127974wfi.31.1294265132910; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:05:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.143.5.8 with SMTP id h8mr127973wfi.31.1294265132886; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:05:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org (digitalkingdom.org [173.13.139.234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f13si120856wfo.0.2011.01.05.14.05.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:05:32 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) client-ip=173.13.139.234; Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PabU4-0006tv-8R for lojban@googlegroups.com; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:05:32 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 14:05:32 -0800 From: Robin Lee Powell To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! (was Re: [lojban] Re: Vote for the Future Global Language) Message-ID: <20110105220532.GN17534@digitalkingdom.org> References: <9114501.161.1294150198377.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqhy19> <7c0687a1-deba-495a-9760-95d1d0649423@t8g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <20110105165231.GK17534@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Original-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rlpowell@digitalkingdom.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: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 10:34:21PM +0100, Ivo Doko wrote: > On 5 January 2011 17:52, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > Saying that > > it is very far from being complete and functioning is ridiculous, > > and pretty insulting to a lot of people's hard work. > > As for the title/subject, I never said that lojban is *broken*, pardon me, I > only said that it isn't finished, You did, actually: it's a fully defined, complete and functioning language, which lojban is very far from being at the moment "far from functioning" is very different from "incomplete". > which is not something I made up - I constantly read people both > newbies and oldies ranting on about how there's so much work yet > to be done on lojban This is why I started by saying that this isn't really about you. There are a lot of things that can and should be done aronud here, but very few of them have to do with making the language *complete*. It's plenty functional as is, it's more about finishing the codification of what is. Even things like xorlo were, overall, extremely minor; it changed very little about how the language is actually spoken. The only thing of any real significance was lo's inner quentifier. And yet people act like it's hugely full of holes and millions of things need to be changed, and on and on. It's just not true. I'm not saying *you* did anything wrong, because as you said people say things like this all the time. It's a generic problem 'round here. > To me that seems like lojban is, to put it as simple as possible, > not finished. I think that that's fair; it's just not what I heard you say. > Esperanto, on the other hand, is. Were you trying to say that > Esperanto isn't finished either? It may not be as "fully defined" > as lojban is, but that doesn't really say much. That was all I was saying, yes. I had no intention of asserting that Esperanto wasn't finished, which is why I divided my comments into two sections. You said that Lojban was far from being fully defined; I was responding to that. Then later I responded to you saying that it is "very far" from complete or functioning. It is not, in fact, very far from either of those. "unfinished" yes, but there is a sense in which it will *never* be finished; all languages change and grow. "very far from finished", no. -Robin -- http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future. Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false" is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/ -- 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.