Message-ID: <4715EA99.7070605@lojban.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:57:29 -0400
From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:  lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Why not a new LfB text?
References: <a19baaa70710161418i6fce691bicfcc945640d83050@mail.gmail.com> <471546B5.7090304@lojban.org> <7B6BCEF8-5091-4346-8132-0E571DEA4400@umich.edu>
In-Reply-To: <7B6BCEF8-5091-4346-8132-0E571DEA4400@umich.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Length: 1179

Alex Martini wrote:
>> The problem is that when people are confused over something in the  
>> two books, a xorlo supporter will explain things differently from a  
>> user who uses the baseline language.  To them, the language has  changed.
> 
> Ah -- thanks for clarifying that point. I always thought that xorlo  
> *had* been officially adopted. That explains why LfB still uses gadri  
> like CLL.

There seems to be more xorlo users active on the net, but it is indeed 
difficult to get a change actually approved (and most people are happy 
about this).  A lot of us "old fogeys" are from the pre-Internet culture 
and aren't quite so visible, so one doesn't often see as much of the 
standard usage.

This week, an old-timer from Finland indicated his opposition to xorlo 
as being malglico because it makes distinctions that are important in 
English that are not important in Finnish, and which he believes are 
undesirable in a logical language.  It is a late objection, but it shows 
that xorlo is not universally approved of.  The main question is whether 
there are any other solutions to issues in the baseline, that all of the 
community could accept.

lojbab