[lojban] Re: {le} in xorlo

[Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com>]

> I'm annoyed by my inability
> to follow discussions due to the technical language surrounding it and
> by the fact that we've wasted so much damn time arguing about really
> small semantics instead of just making a damn decision and trying it
> out.

As a follow-up, I realise that I'm more so irritated by the fact that
so much time and effort is spent in coming up with really big words
and specific English-isms to describe how a Lojban word works, but I
think that we're failing to cater to a major market here, namely
idiots like myself that don't really follow what "lambda" and
"veridical" are or really understand all of the scientific words that
the senior jbo-ists throw around like softballs. Rather than gripe
about all the little technical details, why don't we come up with a
single, stupid, easy, definite answer (for things like "ni" for
example)? Rather than gripe about how something was -intended- to be
used, just decide on what the best way is to use a word and stick with
it.

So, long story short, I'm not scared of change, I'm annoyed by delays,
indecisiveness, and overcomplicating every little damn thing. For all
I care we could change "lo" back to "the only one in the universe" or
whatever the hell it meant and we could change the word "djica" to
mean "x1 is a pancake that demands x2 hears it roar (utterance) x3
with syrup x4 and flying pig x5" or whatever the hell as long as it
makes more sense.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.