From ragnarok@pobox.com Mon Sep 17 21:01:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 18 Sep 2001 04:01:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 94603 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2001 23:00:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Sep 2001 23:00:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2 with SMTP; 17 Sep 2001 23:00:50 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.34] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A0A153460098; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:00:49 -0400 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: logical language and usage deciding Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:59:52 -0400 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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" >To be explicit on the mailing list about things I've said on the Wiki: >there are things being proposed in Lojban which I intensely dislike. I >don't mean rafsi or attitudinals; I may think some aspects of them ill-thought >out, but I am not, and cannot, suggest they be uprooted from the language; >they are part of it, and I am committed to the stability of the language >(the recent exceptions to that commitment, I would like to think, prove >the rule.) I mean rather things mooted for introduction. I am against >type 4 fu'ivla; I am against experimental gismu. I have my reasons; I >won't bore you with them again --- see "fundamentalism" on the Wiki. Typo 4 fu'ivla are one of the few areas in which Nick and I agree completely. I'm strongly tavlakai, he is probably the biggest fundamentalist on the list; there is bipartisan support for disuse of type 4 fu'ivla. As for experimental gismu, have you seen my suggestion (http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?Experimental%20gismu%20proposal) of using them all in the same way as the broda-series? >If, on the other hand, it does matter, and there is a real potential >for misunderstanding, then the naturalist will have to >listen to the hardliner, because the hardliner has some pertinent >arguments, given the origins of the language. She doesn't have to obey >him, but she does have to listen. On >the other hand, the hardliner has to demonstrate feasibility by attempting >to use what she preaches: she has to adopt the naturalist's methodology. >If And won't do it, and if I think what And says on a particular issue is >right, then I have no problem doing it for him. (As soon as I'm able to >find out what he may or may not have said. :-) But the javnakai must still listen to the tavlakai, also. We all wont a logical language, but whereas you emphasize the seltau, we emphasize the tertau. What we need is to all listen to those in the middle. >A responsible Lojbanist is a Lojbanist who cares for the stability of the >language. Both naturalists and hardliners have demonstrated this >responsibility. It is exceedingly difficult to maintain cohesion in this >language, as it is for all conlangs. But I think we're still committed to >trying. No, a responsible Lojbanist is a Lojbanist who cares for the stabitlity of the language community. Even lojbab wants the language to evolve, unless I'm misunderstanding him. And your desire for a speakable predicate logic - if the logic doesn't evolve out, which I don't forsee it doing, that just proves that it is possible and easy. --la kreig.daniyl. 'segu le bavli temci gi mi'o renvi lo purci .i ga le fonxa janbe gi du mi' -la djimis.BYFet xy.sy. gubmau ckiku nacycme: 0x5C3A1E74