[lojban] Re: Named multiples

[Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com>]

Woooooooowwwww...
Some of you are taking this a little too personally.

We're not all linguists and maths professors in the community, but I
think it's still fair to have a word in what happens to Lojban. I'm
sorry that I'm not the most educated of the group and that I don't
know all the correct terminology. I'm expressing my opinion as the
layman user, not the programmer or the logician. Mr. Lopresto, I'm not
-attacking- anything, I'm debating my side of the argument, and I
don't appreciate you talking down to me when I've been with the
community for almost a year now. I know how to speak Lojban just fine,
and I don't appreciate you insinuating that I don't.

tijlan, your argument actually makes a lot of sense. I suppose I was
taking a somewhat conservative approach to things, which I'm sure is
only normal when we're making big changes to the grammar. xorlo was
probably charged by the horns as well, wasn't it? Well, if I'm
completely outnumbered, I might as well roll with the punches and see
where this goes.

So, if everybody is adamant on changing how cmevla work in grammar,
then why don't we actually test it out? Cement things out firmly?
Again, I'm not the sharpest bulb in the tool shed, so please explain a
few things for me.

What is the semantic difference between lo .lindar. and la .lindar. ?
Can cmevla have multiple places?
Is {me} being removed from the grammar due to it not being necessary
after this change?
Could this possibly be used as a system for creating "slang" words?
Could somebody please write a few sample bridi using this new rule?

-- 
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.