From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 10 14:27:48 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 10 Sep 2002 21:27:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 19147 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 21:27:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2002 21:27:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 21:27:48 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.ad.2329d782 (4468) for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:27:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:27:36 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_ad.2329d782.2aafbdc8_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_ad.2329d782.2aafbdc8_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/10/2002 3:15:35 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: << > I can see no evidence here that suggest xod has > > not been following the argument up to the point that this irrelevancy > appears > > out of clear blue sky. > > If you had included the part that I underlined, it would make more > sense. I had already specifically stated that I was granting that point > for the sake of argument. >> If xod gets underliniing the way I do, it is totally unclear what was underlined. But even so, the jump from granting points 1 and 2 (I suppose you mean) to calling a library a book seems a lot for the argument without a bit of explanation. Still, I am sorry I missed your point and chided you beyond the need (though I still think the tone was inappropriate). << > Ummm, the actual concept of the web is about sharing educational > resources between universities. 8) > >> > I like this move usually -- being totally literal to make your > opponent look foolish. It is not cooperative, of course, and, in this > case, just makes you look obtuse, so it probably fails (maybe it > always does, considering the trouble it has gotten me into). Note the smiley. The intention was irony. >> Not how I would read that emoticon, but then I don't use them much, so I apologize for misreading you again. (But surely not irony, since what you say is strictly correct and in nowise covers its opposite. What exactly, I wonder). And you do tend to use the "urr/umm" for zingers. << I would like examples of these 'metaphorical lujvo of yore' that actually got used in conversation, or in *original* lojbanic works. If said lujvo wasn't used in either of those cases, I really don't care about it in the slightest, to be honest. >> Ah, the definitional sulk. Any other requirements you want to lay down before I go looking for an example. I'd hate to find one and then have it disqualified after the fact. As it is, you are making it hard, given that there is so little of the sort of material you want to use that is readily available for searching (or at all, come to that). I will try a bit, though I think coming up with a really metaphorical one is irrelevant to your claim, since even fairly literal ones would fail your first test and the new criteria allow (require, in fact) masses of context which would probably be enough for a reasonably intelligent person to work out a good metaphor. << > A good lujvo is generally -- and loosely speaking -- one that is seen > as apt when it is understood, which need not be when it is first heard > or even when it is first analysed in the absence of understanding. In your opinion. I stridently disagree. >> I know you do, but I can't see why. The ambiguity of tanru yet again. << Again, examples. Examples that actually got used in conversation, preferrably, and were understood. >> This strikes me as a bad test, since it will pass a lot that you don't want in and fail a bunch of really literal ones (the failures would be easier to document, in fact I suppose there have been dozens in texts over the last year, even with context). --part1_ad.2329d782.2aafbdc8_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/10/2002 3:15:35 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:

<<
I can see no evidence here that suggest xod has
> not been following the argument up to the point that this irrelevancy appears
> out of clear blue sky. 

If you had included the part that I underlined, it would make more
sense.  I had already specifically stated that I was granting that point
for the sake of argument.


>>
If xod gets underliniing the way I do, it is totally unclear what was underlined.  But even so, the jump from granting points 1 and 2 (I suppose you mean) to calling a library a book seems a lot for the argument without a bit of explanation.  Still, I am sorry I missed your point and chided you beyond the need (though I still think the tone was inappropriate).

<<
> Ummm, the actual concept of the web is about sharing educational
> resources between universities.   8)
> >>
> I like this move usually -- being totally literal to make your
> opponent look foolish.  It is not cooperative, of course, and, in this
> case, just makes you look obtuse, so it probably fails (maybe it
> always does, considering the trouble it has gotten me into).

Note the smiley.  The intention was irony.
>>
Not how I would read that emoticon, but then I don't use them much, so I apologize for misreading you again.  (But surely not irony, since what you say is strictly correct and in nowise covers its opposite.  What exactly, I wonder).  And you do tend to use the "urr/umm" for zingers.

<<
I would like examples of these 'metaphorical lujvo of yore' that
actually got used in conversation, or in *original* lojbanic works.

If said lujvo wasn't used in either of those cases, I really don't care
about it in the slightest, to be honest.
>>
Ah, the definitional sulk.  Any other requirements you want to lay down before I go looking for an example.  I'd hate to find one and then have it disqualified after the fact.
As it is, you are making it hard, given that there is so little of the sort of material you want to use that is readily available for searching (or at all, come to that).  I will try a bit, though I think coming up with a really metaphorical one is irrelevant to your claim, since even fairly literal ones would fail your first test and the new criteria allow (require, in fact) masses of context which would probably be enough for a reasonably intelligent person to work out a good metaphor. 

<<
> A good lujvo is generally -- and loosely speaking -- one that is seen
> as apt when it is understood, which need not be when it is first heard
> or even when it is first analysed in the absence of understanding.

In your opinion.  I stridently disagree.
>>
I know you do, but I can't see why.  The ambiguity of tanru yet again.

<<
Again, examples.  Examples that actually got used in conversation,
preferrably, and were understood.
>>

This strikes me as a bad test, since it will pass a lot that you don't want in and fail a bunch of really literal ones (the failures would be easier to document, in fact I suppose there  have been dozens in texts over the last year, even with context).













 --part1_ad.2329d782.2aafbdc8_boundary--