| In a message dated 6/4/2001 12:09:35 PM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes: .i la'aru'e vu'enaidai le xa'o troci cu burna le selfrati be do Maybe, but people always ask for advice and comment. They shouldn't, if they are going to get huffy and quit just because the first show it wide of the mark. Of course, they should not publish their first shot until they have some reason to think they are going to do a fair job of it. .i .uu .u'ecai .o'anaidai za'a ca'o le nanca be li 30 ge no dada'o vajni Well. I once ran over everything back to 55, so I guess I can remember the last 30 ears or so. I thought there was some pretty good stuff on epistemology, though not all of it made the transition to Lojban (the only thing I can be sure that did off hand was {li'i}). So I agree that the claim is not quite correct. The part about not much being in Loglan or Lojban is correct, of course, but tends to follow from the fact that not many people are comfortable in the language. Of course, it is a vicious circle, for you can't get better without trying. And when you do try, you launch a landslide of advice and comment which all too often wanders off into a discussion of something else or into a mere 'tis-'tain't discussion of the passage. I don't know how to solve this; it has been around since the beginning and is still here. JCB tried an Academy, which, for various reasons, did not work very well but may have cut down on the discussion problem a bit. Of course, he revised everything published himself, which helped get good stuff (not always) but slowed down the process. How is the Lojban- only list faring?
Well, aside from not being perfectly sure about what kind of an end the number few is, I don't think I agree with this at all. Making mistakes is useful for development, if you learn from them and can correct them within a viable framework. But not having any significant success, not finding a framework, is fatal. So, I don't want excessive fearfulness of mistake makers -- or of making mistakes, for that matter -- nor of excessive security, but I would like enough to provide a chance for growth not a guarantee of death. Shrimp can adapt to handling an amazing amount of arsenic in their water over a period of years, but not to the same amount if it is poured in all at once. Is the arguing here so constant as to appear a state and to no purpose at all? I don't think so, nor apparently do most others, since they join in with considerable vigor. And that is because problems do get solved in the arguments (at least sometimes) and so each sentence does not have to be a whole new perilous hunt for good usage. Some bits get settled.
I would probably reverse {bebna} and {palci} But then, I don't see any vitality being disrupted -- that ought not be anyhow. |