RE: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals

["Craig" <ragnarok@pobox.com>]

>It _is_ comprehensible to you that others could understand your POV and
>still not agree, right?

Given that we're disagreeing about what the best way to express yourself is,
and the Book's way, as more clearly stated by la xorxes., still works just
fine, everyone is claiming their way is somehow 'better' when lojban. is
trying to be easy to learn and unambiguous, I will see a point in other
ideas as soon as they are A. simpler or B. less ambiguous. You say this is
ambiguous? Show me any sentence that is ambiguous under the rules layed out
in the book and I will accept that it is ambiguous. Until then, I can
understand a controversy if we disagree about needing to be simple and
unambiguous, but unless I'm missing something huge I don't think there is
one. Now I could still be missing something huge, but it seems to me that
the simplest unambiguous way is to do it as we always have. Show me a
complexity or an ambiguity and this whole discussion will make sense. But
every way proposed since the thing was started is more complex, not less, in
that it is harder to remember all the rules. And a lot of them contradict
usage, and IMHO the usage so far is how it is because IT WORKS. Now as for
your question, of course it is comprehensible. But one of us must be wrong,
and while it could be me (and the book) I see no reason to believe it is. If
such a reason presents itself, I will calmly shut up. Until you have one,
why don't you do the same?

                             --la kreig.daniyl

     'segu temci fa le bavli gi mi'o ba renvi lo purci
     .i ga la fonxa cu janbe gi du mi'
                     -la djimis.BYFet

xy.sy. gubmau ckiku cmesanji:  0x5C3A1E74