| In a message dated 6/5/2001 8:26:36 PM Central Daylight Time,
richardt@flash.net writes: <Stop sugar-coating everthing and tell us what you really think...> I doubt you really want that, but if you insist... <Since lojban has sets and sequences "built-in," I'd say constructions using them are very much in the spirit of lojban. It's not longer than the{ji} version, or particularly difficult to understand. So what, in particular, is your objection? Having a less-than-direct translation to English wouldn't hold much water. And I can't believe you'd say that it has 'too much logic' in it...> JCB would be unhappy to hear this, but Lojban/Loglan is awfully SAE in many ways, including all that set and sequence stuff. So, they are notuniquely or distinctively lojbanic. {ji} is. I have no objections tothe other form; it works well in English and most other European langauge, and it worksin Lojban. But I tend to use "Lojbanic" for expressions that catch the special features of Lojban: {mi prami do} doesn't seem very Lojbanic in that sense. In short, I wasn't objecting to your sentence, but to (Robin CA's?) claim that it was "very lojbanic." (It is also longer than the {ji} version, but I don't think that is terribly important, any more than the missing {tu'a} in both versions.) |