From pycyn@aol.com Thu Sep 12 18:41:18 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 13 Sep 2002 01:41:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 21437 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2002 01:41:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2002 01:41:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d03.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.35) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 01:41:18 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.5f.2d326696 (3956) for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 21:41:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5f.2d326696.2ab29c3b@aol.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 21:41:15 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_5f.2d326696.2ab29c3b_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_5f.2d326696.2ab29c3b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/11/2002 7:53:46 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: << > Pre-CLL lojban had plenty of problems (literal lujvo aside), so I > don't think the implied argument of "it's always been this way, so > it's the right way" makes any sense whatsoever (especially if you're > reaching back to the Dark Ages (loglan days) of the language). >> Not exactly the argument (hey, I am an Episcopalian vestryman -- I hear that one everytime anyone want to do anything). To be sure, I was pointing out that -- as even Nick admits -- dikyjvo (itself a non-literal lujvo, note) is not required; that there is a history of other types, and that, in the past at least, when there was a competition between the two, a good metaphor usually won out. That is, in short, the claim is that "it ain't dikyjvo" is not a fatal -- maybe not even a serious -- objection to a proposed lujvo. As my wife says when she tosses a bunch of plants that have spread too far in their old places into a barren patch, "Let 'em duke it out." (This does seem to be related to the other slogan I've mentioned in this context). --part1_5f.2d326696.2ab29c3b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/11/2002 7:53:46 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:

<<

Pre-CLL lojban had plenty of problems (literal lujvo aside), so I
don't think the implied argument of "it's always been this way, so
it's the right way" makes any sense whatsoever (especially if you're
reaching back to the Dark Ages (loglan days) of the language).

>>
Not exactly the argument (hey, I am an Episcopalian vestryman -- I hear that one everytime anyone want to do anything). To be sure, I was pointing out that -- as even Nick admits -- dikyjvo (itself a non-literal lujvo, note) is not required; that there is a history of other types, and that, in the past at least, when there was a competition between the two, a good metaphor usually won out. That is, in short, the claim is that "it ain't dikyjvo" is not a fatal -- maybe not even a serious -- objection to a proposed lujvo. As my wife says when she tosses a bunch of plants that have spread too far in their old places into a barren patch, "Let 'em duke it out." (This does seem to be related to the other slogan I've mentioned in this context).
--part1_5f.2d326696.2ab29c3b_boundary--