From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 18 15:52:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 18 Sep 2001 22:52:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 30562 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2001 22:52:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 18 Sep 2001 22:52:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d06.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.38) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 Sep 2001 22:52:49 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.130.1bf00d6 (4585) for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 18:52:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <130.1bf00d6.28d92a3b@aol.com> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 18:52:43 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] META : Who is everyone (and what are they saying) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_130.1bf00d6.28d92a3b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_130.1bf00d6.28d92a3b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/18/2001 11:48:37 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > You took early retirement with a pay increase?! Me green green > green with envy! > Don't be. More than what I got working at UMSL, less than anyone else I know gets working or retired (well, not quite, I suppose -- some of those below me in the old list must still be below me, but I don't know them by name or face). I would probably find more than you (except, of course, that they then become controversial), but, yes, the gismu list gives boundaries and we have to fill in the center (remember {botpi}?) as much as need be (and so more as time goes along). this does not seem to me to be incompletion and does seem to be where usage decides things. And where prior official definitions handed down would have been a disaster. I am much less sure about cmavo, which I think are pretty clear by and large (though I obviously don't agree with everyone's ideas -- but then, I just think they are wrong) and have to be. They are part of the bones, cmavo are flesh and ornamentation. We learn things about cmavo but not, generally, what they mean. --part1_130.1bf00d6.28d92a3b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/18/2001 11:48:37 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


You took early retirement with a pay increase?! Me green green
green with envy!


Don't be.  More than what I got working at UMSL, less than anyone else I know gets working or retired  (well, not quite, I suppose -- some of those below me in the old list must still be below me, but I don't know them by name or face).  

<On my claim about Lojban being unspelled out, it clearly is many many
times better spelled out than any other invented language has ever been,
but a grammar is a rule system that defines sentences as form--meaning
pairings and I do believe that it is therefore massively incomplete, even
setting aside the gismu and lujvo. For example, try going through the
mahoste and identifying those cmavo whose meaning is both clear and
uncontroversial -- there are very very few. >

I would probably find more than you (except, of course, that they then become controversial), but, yes, the gismu list gives boundaries and we have to fill in the center (remember {botpi}?) as much as need be (and so more as time goes along).  this does not seem to me to be incompletion and does seem to be where usage decides things.  And where prior official definitions handed down would have been a disaster.  I am much less sure about cmavo, which I think are pretty clear by and large (though I obviously don't agree with everyone's ideas -- but then, I just think they are wrong) and have to be.  They are part of the bones, cmavo are flesh and ornamentation.  We learn things about cmavo but not, generally, what they mean.
--part1_130.1bf00d6.28d92a3b_boundary--