[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: {le} in xorlo
Robert LeChevalier, On 15/04/2010 17:59:
And Rosta wrote:
What *is* relevant to discussion on Lojban list is the simple
recognition that because Lojban fails goals (b) and (c) of
logical-languagehood, it is unreasonable to insist on
logical-languagehood being a continuing Lojban design goal in the
specification of the the mission of the BPFK.
Which is one reason that has not been part of the mission of the BPFK.
Their mission is to define the language that is.
Robin quite rightly got fed up with the old BPFK mission definition, and published a manifesto that included his preferred language design goals, which seemed (not just to me) to include logical-languagehood.
Communicatively you can manage without it by using "le du" instead.
The rationale for "zo'e'e" was in the context of the suggested formal
periphrastic definitions of gadri in terms of KOhA NOI constructions.
If you can manage it with something else, why propose a different
definition? Someone is looking to add elegance to what apparently
already works, when elegance wasn't necessarily something we were trying
for (as opposed to packing as many critical distinctions as possible
into as few words as possible, where there is disagreement now as to
what distinctions are critical, but there wasn't in 1988).
If you had replied to the actual discussion, I would be more confident that you had made some effort to read it and understand the point of the discussion. Your questions don't seem apposite to the actual discussion.
--And.
--
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.