Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:42:01 EDT

In a message dated 8/23/2001 4:05:22 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Btw, pc, I normally don't hold with the "Lynch PC party", but you telling
> us we're quibbling because we *don't* want to have to insert extraneous
> {ce'u} and make using the language that much harder... well, it's not
> constructive.
> 

A party? Oh, goodie; am I invited? But, hye, y'all have come up with at 
least 13 different ways to avoid saying what you mean with {du'u} and {ka}. 
If one of those isn't what you want, I don't see any reason to drag yet 
another abstractor in to satisfy you. There are only about four left; what 
will you do when you can't be satisfied with them too? Sit down and agree 
(FC!) what you want this, that and the other thing to mean (work with {klama} 
to test the reasonable outer limits) and then figure out the shortest way to 
say the favorite, the next shortet for the next and so on, perhaps fiddling a 
little for the sake of an easy rule and then use that. You know what the 
TRUE (i.e. logical and/or hardline position is) and you know how to adapt it 
in various minimalist ways to variety of needs. If that doesn't work, then 
have a ball (the truth rarely wins in Lojban anyhow and I am so used to that 
I hardly bother to mention it more than once or twice a week anymore --except 
to snort when "the logical language" appears).