Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:32:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EdZNV-0002GX-Eu for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:32:05 -0800 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EdZNV-0002GP-5n for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:32:05 -0800 Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:32:05 -0800 To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Up-to-date definition of Lojban Message-ID: <20051119203205.GS23316@chain.digitalkingdom.org> References: <1003614874.20051119120342@mail.ru> <20051119060745.GK23316@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d17560511190633j100f3c6dhfa8f70c2a540924@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <925d17560511190633j100f3c6dhfa8f70c2a540924@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 2619 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Content-Length: 1322 On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 11:33:02AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 11/19/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 12:03:42PM +0600, Yanis Batura wrote: > > > While preparing the third and fourth modules for Parallel, I > > > found out (thanks to xorxes!) that the following sources now > > > and then contradict each other: > > > > > > 1) Lojban For Beginners (LFB) > > > > > > 2) The Complete Lojban Language (CLL) > > > > > > 3) Definitions from cmavo.txt and gismu.txt > > > > > > 4) Definitions from BPFK sections. > > > > Yes, and I really wish xorxes would stop talking about that to > > newbies. It's caused much more confusion than is useful. > > I don't see why beginners should be treated as if they were > incapable of using their brains. It has nothing to do with using their brains or not. It has to do with not presenting *unfinished works* to people as though they were canon. They're not. Period. If I had thought people were going to go around trumpeting the BPFK stuff as gospel before we were done, I likely wouldn't have taken the jatna job. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/