On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:50:58PM -0500, Craig wrote:
> >> >{lo} is not defined in traditional Lojban the way you want it.
> >>
> >> Yes it is.
>
> >No it isn't. mi nitcu lo mikce == Ex(Mx & Nmx). There is no
> >question that this is the definition given in CLL. Traditional
> >lojban == CLL.
>
> First, I wish to thank Jordan for trying to remove us from the world of
> unbacked assertions.
Heh.
> Second, I wish to note that in each case, the 'unbacked' assertion was a
> conclusion to what was above it. It is silly to answer a conclusion to a
> message without responding to its content.
Heh.
> Third, the fact that anyone disagrees about the meaning of {mi nitcu lo
> mikce} means that there *is* a question.
Um. The book says what it says. I don't feel like finding quotes.
Just go read chapter 16.
> So let's avoid the unbacked
> assertions. Now, I know you're about to make an argumentum ad populum here
> (or at least most people would) and claim that there are only two of us. To
Straw man.
[...]
> Fourth, traditional Lojban == Baseline. This includes CLL, but is by no
> means limited to it.
Of course, what I had intended was that anything in CLL is obviously
standard or "traditional" lojban. So this point is off topic.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgp00411.pgp
Description: PGP signature