Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable

[And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>]

Martin Bays, On 06/11/2011 19:02:
> * Sunday, 2011-11-06 at 09:26 -0800 - John E Clifford<kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
>
> > The fact that something can screw up in English seem poor evidence that the
> > "corresponding" thing screws up in Lojban.
>
> > So I am uncionvinced.
>
> What are you unconvinced by? That this "screw up" occurs in xorxes and
> and's understanding of lojban? Or that their understanding is correct
> (whatever that means)?

Regarding understanding of Lojban, I think pretty much all jboskepre understand that 99% of what jboskepre discuss is currently undefined for Lojban, not necessarily because it is so arcane but more because, at least until Robin tried to change this last year or thereabouts, there was no mechanism for completing the official specification of Lojban. However, I gather that xorlo did become official. It seems odd that anybody would be unconvinced that xorlo was Blobularist, at least in intention, though perhaps somebody might want to try to argue that xorlo needn't be Blobularist. So the focus of the discussion has been on the putative problems of Blobularism and therefore of xorlo.

--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.