Re: [lojban] Re: {le} in xorlo

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

Sorry 'bout that.  Jargon is a pain (Lojban jargon is a double pain because we use it while we are trying to figure out exactly what it means).  But it saves space and time.  Imagine how long any discussion about Lojban would be without using "gismu" and "fu'ivla" and the like (or, preferably, their English, etc., counterparts so all could join in).  Rather than being frustrated by the debate, join it.  You may have to start by asking "dumb" questions (ther's no such thing--at least the first time around), but your interlocutors, being academics and thus fond of their own words, will answer and try to explain.  Soon you'll be in a position to join right in -- as you already are on the periphery.  For instance, you mention 'ni', which suggests that you have read up on its various suggested meanings.  As a user of the language, you have some notion of what is needed or will work in the language (even if you can't imagine ever needing 'ni'), so you have
 some opinions and some reasons for them; speak out.

Meanwhile, may I suggest (on another line already) that kitchen measure be defined in the context of recipes, the environment where they are used (not "teaspoon" but "n teaspoons of y")

----- Original Message ----
From: Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com>
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, April 16, 2010 12:16:25 AM
Subject: [lojban] Re: {le} in xorlo

> 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.


      

-- 
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.