Re: [lojban] Re: xorlo podcast

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 9/29/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Well, you probably have an advantage on me for
> doing history, since a large part of my hard
> drive that Linux took out was my records for
> those earlier discussions.

Everything relevant is publicly accessible on the internet
(which is not to say that it is always easy to find) except
for that recent private exchange we had. I don't have much
kept in my computer, all of my writing in or about Lojban
is out there in cyberspace. The advantage I may have is
that if we are discussing what I did or did not do, or how I
used certain word, or which word I used for something,
then I have a better chance of recalling correctly. If we
were discussing your usage you'd have the advantage.

> Not that it actually
> matters in the long run whether it was as
> accepted or used as I remember.  the discussions
> on which it was based and the formulations of are
> as they were presented at various times in our
> more recent discussions -- where it was described

(described by you, yes, never by me)

> as the previous standard in various ways  and was
> clearly not CLL. And, of course, the whole is
> laid out in the cited wiki page.

But did that page ever constitute a consensus of more
than one?

> > I can't "go back" to a place I never left.
>
> Well, I will not cite personal conversations,

Please do cite whatever you want from me, I don't
remember saying anything in that discussion I wouldn't
say in public. I'm quite certain have not changed my
position.

>but
> they did leave me with the impression that you
> were now falling back to the smaller "species"
> interpretation.

I don't really know what the 'smaller "species" interpretation'
is, so I can't comment on that. I don't think I have ever
understood the labels you keep coming up with for my
position, but it is you who keeps changing the labels, not
my position that changes.

> Even that was a bit hard to get
> out of the official description but was a
> possibility, but the Mr.Mr. interp is harder
> still.  And -- at least in the version that was
> most recently going round -- it does prevent the
> carefully constructed system that allowed {lo}
> finally to be workable in at least some kind of
> logic.

You don't have to use that way of describing things if
it doesn't sit well with you. Your best bet is to ignore
all descriptions and concentrate on the usage and the
examples.

mu'o mi'e xorxes