Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 21:41:15 EDT

In a message dated 9/11/2002 7:53:46 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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).