From pycyn@aol.com Wed Aug 29 08:22:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 15:22:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 71756 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 15:18:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 15:18:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 15:18:40 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.30.19f71afa (4353) for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:18:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <30.19f71afa.28be61c5@aol.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:18:29 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_30.19f71afa.28be61c5_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_30.19f71afa.28be61c5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/29/2001 8:15:10 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > My attempt to make sense (in my eyes) of pc's latest proposal. > Yeah, that what I think too. <> I still haven't seen any useful sentences involving more than 2 > {ce'u}s. unfortunately that doesn't tell us much. If people understood when they need ce'u and if they never elided it, then you would have seen it. And in discussions of, say, definitional issues (e.g. "Is daterape rape?") you'd get a lot of all-ce'us> I think so, too, but it is hard to prove. Since I do think that was the best compromise possible but want to keep {ka} generally, I have withdrawn that proposal. If we find we use a lot of {ce'u}, we will find something better, at least in the sense of not riling people. Well, I still think that the rest of my summary deserves a try. And then yes we can go back to where we want to be. --part1_30.19f71afa.28be61c5_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/29/2001 8:15:10 AM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


My attempt to make sense (in my eyes) of pc's latest proposal.

Yeah, that what I think too.

<> I still haven't seen any useful sentences involving more than 2
> {ce'u}s.

unfortunately that doesn't tell us much. If people understood when they
need ce'u and if they never elided it, then you would have seen it. And
in discussions of, say, definitional issues (e.g. "Is daterape rape?")
you'd get a lot of all-ce'us>

I think so, too, but it is hard to prove.

<Yes. pc appears to be of the opinion that this is the overall best compromise
solution. I've come round to the view that ka is unsalvageable.>

Since I do think that was the best compromise possible but want to keep {ka}
generally, I have withdrawn that proposal.  If we find we use a lot of
{ce'u}, we will find something better, at least in the sense of not riling
people.

<I think I'd go for the experimental cmavo for abstracting selbri,
plus a hardcore glorkbog ka to which a Government Health Warning is
attached. There doesn't seem much point in formalizing conventions
for ka; they'd be leaky and not very robust or effectual in making
current usage that much less vague.>

Well, I still think that the rest of my summary deserves a try.  And then yes
we can go back to where we want to be.


--part1_30.19f71afa.28be61c5_boundary--