From pycyn@aol.com Thu Aug 23 16:45:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 23 Aug 2001 23:45:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 2420 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2001 23:42:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Aug 2001 23:42:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Aug 2001 23:42:36 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.6.1ad5eed2 (17381) for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:41:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6.1ad5eed2.28b6eec9@aol.com> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:42:01 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_6.1ad5eed2.28b6eec9_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_6.1ad5eed2.28b6eec9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/23/2001 4:05:22 PM Central Daylight Time, nicholas@uci.edu 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). --part1_6.1ad5eed2.28b6eec9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/23/2001 4:05:22 PM Central Daylight Time,
nicholas@uci.edu 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). --part1_6.1ad5eed2.28b6eec9_boundary--