RE: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>]

pc:
> <This really belongs in a different thread about lo'e, but it does seem to me
> that for any construct that focuses on x1, the proper way to handle it is
> using our x1-focusing construction, viz. gadri + sumti-tail.>
>
> Is that a threat there will be such a thread, separate from {ce'u}?

I thought you had threatened such a thread, so as to challenge the xorxes-And
consensus.

> But, if
> so, didn't you just object to doing a gadri+ sumti-tail for "the typical"?

I object to it *meaning* "the typical", because that meaning can be done
by a "x1 is a typical member of x2" brivla.

> <What is Nalgol?>
>
> Ah, the loss of community memory (and thus the need to repeat our mistakes, I
> suppose).  Nalgol is the language "to improve a minor point in Loglan" by
> totally redoing a mass of major design features.  The original one was, I
> think, Jim Carter's back in the late 70s.  We haven't had occasion to mention
> this typical constructed language phenomenon in Lojban much since the
> base-lining (and before it was part of the process), but recently there seems
> to have been a spate of ever more aggressive cases which now seem to call the
> word back into use.  Or should we shift to Nabjol? I think not; the chance to
> shoot at the languages of the 60s and 70s is still to good to pass by.

If only there were a Nalgol project as thriving as the Loglan (=lojban)
project: you'd be well shot of me.

--And.