From xod@sixgirls.org Wed Sep 12 20:34:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 13 Sep 2001 03:34:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 56976 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2001 03:33:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2001 03:33:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Sep 2001 03:33:42 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f8D2seB24160 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2001 22:54:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 22:54:39 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Better "hardliner" definition (was: A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Nick NICHOLAS wrote: > Why did you pick a logic-based conlang to start with? You could have > dispensed with all the logic quibbling, and still gotten your Sapir-Whorf > effects, if you'd worked with Laadan.) Perhaps the "hardliner"/"naturalist" division, one that I never quite understood, is better approximated as the tension between those that focus on the "Logical Language" aspect, vs. the "Sapir-Whorf" aspect. Why did JCB choose to bother developing a Logical Language in order to test SW? We feel the effects of the contradiction between these two goals. ----- "We should destroy the Muslims' homes while leaving the Christians' homes alone." -- Rehavam Zeevi, Israeli Tourism Minister