[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism
At 03:34 PM 10/3/02 -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 10/3/2002 11:43:36 AM Central Daylight Time,
>xod@thestonecutters.net writes:
>
><<
>>Records are fine, but they need to written on a level that all jboka'e can
>>understand. All the Records I've seen were incomprehensibly dense.
>
> >>
>Complex technical questions require complex technical answers. If they
>give rise to simple questions, then simple answers will be available. So
>far as I can tell, with the exception of the {ka}-{du'u}-{ce'u} complex
>(where people criticized every view proposed and then rejected every
>compromise that satisfied their objection, finally going back to the
>position which had led to the criticism in the first place -- and I get
>accused of wasting time!), no topic of fervent debate has had much in the
>way of implication for usage -- at least not that anyone has cited.
>( The {ka} et al fisco is the main reason for no further Records: I
>realized that neither reporting the various positions nor formulating ways
>around the objections nor opting for one position over others was going to
>be an acceptable conclusion of a debate, so there was little point in
>summing it up if it was only going to continue or start again -- or end
>with no reference to the debate at all, as happened in this case.)
But not all technical questions are complex technical questions. Some
recent threads:
Lionel's:
>Is there a grammatical device to make some hypothesis marked by {da'i} sticky?
Led to many messages, and I don't have time to read them all to find out if
there was a simple answer.
Jorge's
>What do you all think of this:
>
> le plini cu mulcarna paroi ro mentu
>
>1- Is {mulcarna} good for "x1 makes a full turn around x2
>in direction x3"?
>
>2- The problem with {paroi ro mentu} is that the quantifiers
>are in the wrong order. The alternative {ro da poi mentu zo'u
>le plini cu mulcarna paroi da} is too longwinded and requires
>forethought. Any ideas?
Led to an even longer thread. Was there an consensus on an answer?
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/