From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Aug 30 18:36:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 31 Aug 2001 01:36:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 73016 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2001 01:36:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Aug 2001 01:36:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41) by mta2 with SMTP; 31 Aug 2001 01:36:48 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.84.56]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010831013646.FNED15984.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 02:36:46 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:45:09 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <83.f3ba66c.28bed59c@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" pc: > 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}? I thought you had threatened such a thread, so as to challenge the xorxes-And consensus. > But, if > so, didn't you just object to doing a gadri+ sumti-tail for "the typical"? I object to it *meaning* "the typical", because that meaning can be done by a "x1 is a typical member of x2" brivla. > > > 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. If only there were a Nalgol project as thriving as the Loglan (=lojban) project: you'd be well shot of me. --And.