RE: [jboske] lo'e gadri: can we converge towards a resolution?

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Nick:
> cu'u la xorxes 
> >>I would like to make two further proposals (I want them to be
> >>taken jointly, not separately):
> >>
> >>* cmavo for Average are lo'e & le'e
> >>* cmavo for Unique are loi'e & lei'e and are made official 
> 
> >I would prefer the reverse assignment, so that usage is not
> >invalidated 
> 
> At which point I say ex cathedra that if usage turns out to be only 
> your usage, it is not a sufficient argument. It has to be a plurality 
> of Lojbanists' usage. If you are the only one to have used lo'e 
> extensively, that still cannot count 
> 
> Yes, this is adversarial, and I may well be wrong about you being the 
> only user. But those are the ground rules for the BPFK 

I have used lo'e and le'e for Unique, but I consider my usage to
be exploratory, and in no wise canonical, and I don't care if it
gets invalidated. I consider all Lojban text written to date to
be intrinsically invalid, because it is written on the basis of
such an incomplete language and such an incomplete understanding
of it.

--And.