Subject: Re: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:32:44 EDT

In a message dated 8/29/2001 3:48:49 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Before this debate began, rule 1 was NOT established or agreed on, and
> hence it was possible that an empty place could be filled with a ce'u.
> 

Depends upon when you think this debate began. This point could not have 
arisen before someone actually said that {du'u} is just {ka} with... Before 
THAT comment was made, I think point 1 was pretty much agreed on -- once 
{ce'u} came tyo be understood at all, that is.

<This really belongs in a different thread about lo'e, but it does seem to me
that for any construct that focuses on x1, the proper way to handle it is
using our x1-focusing construction, viz. gadri + sumti-tail.>

Is that a threat there will be such a thread, separate from {ce'u}? But, if 
so, didn't you just object to doing a gadri+ sumti-tail for "the typical"?

<What is Nalgol?>

Ah, the loss of community memory (and thus the need to repeat our mistakes, I 
suppose). Nalgol is the language "to improve a minor point in Loglan" by 
totally redoing a mass of major design features. The original one was, I 
think, Jim Carter's back in the late 70s. We haven't had occasion to mention 
this typical constructed language phenomenon in Lojban much since the 
base-lining (and before it was part of the process), but recently there seems 
to have been a spate of ever more aggressive cases which now seem to call the 
word back into use. Or should we shift to Nabjol? I think not; the chance to 
shoot at the languages of the 60s and 70s is still to good to pass by.