Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Archive location.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:25:57 EDT

In a message dated 9/11/2002 10:19:56 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> > The lujvo list I have is pretty much taken up by chicken-shit forms like 
> > {selbroda} from {se broda} and a few 2nd-place inclusions. It has yet to 
> 
> > turn up a wors I have needed for anything and I don't do very recondite 
> > stuff. 
> 
> Riiight; with the insanely large volume of lojban-only text you
> post to this list or speak on irc, this is completely understandable.
> >>
Very little of my Lojban makes it to the list, true (I tend to try to get it 
right as best I can before I send it out -- against the usual habit -- and I 
am an inveterate tinkerer). But in even that little bit, the lujvo list was 
no help at all. In the bigger set, the problems multipy proportionately.

<<
Making your own lujvo is really not a good idea since we have no
central, easily maleable lujvo dictionary in use yet (ku'i.ui ca'o
farvi gau la djeiz.)
And if no one makes their own lujvo, we will never need one -- a possible 
solution to a whole slew of problems.

<<
So essentially, your claim about "long tradition foo blah blah" is just
a matter of you ignoring the only thing that even slightly resembles the
lujvo dictionary talked about in CLL. I think I'm done reading your posts
in this thread.
You, being new at all this, forget -- or maybe did not ever know -- that 
there are three editions of The Loglan Dictionary, several hundred pages of 
dictironary from 1962 to 1990-something. That is a long tradition in Loglan 
terms (it only goes back to 1955, after all). Now, you may say that Loglan 
is not Lojban, but, in fact, that goes against the stance of LLG -- on all 
matters except details of gismu and the grammar -- and the clear evidence of 
both history and observation. The Dictionary is what CLL calls us to 
emulate, so is not irrelevant in any case. 
MY point was just that the lujvo list, whatever its claims, is pretty clearly 
not a reliable source for what lujvo have been used nor are needed for use.

<<
.oiru'e la'e di'u mutce bebna .i na xamgu darlu .i mi jai mulno casnu
Of course not -- what's the point of being a logician if you don't know how 
to use the illogical tools as well. What is the range of the things you 
discuss (in Lojban, mind you) completely (I assume this is hyperbole). 

<<
P.S. mi xebni le'e cakla
>> Yeah, me too -- I'm a licorice man. (black root -- but where does 
shit-making fit in? I know the root is not colored black, in case you want 
to jump on me for that. And if I put sweetness in, then the connections get 
mixed more than a little.)