Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism (was: RE: Re: paroi ro mentu

From: Jordan DeLong <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 20:05:20 -0500

On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 11:03:11PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> Jordan DeLong
> > On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 06:00:27PM -0000, jjllambias2000 wrote:
> > > la djorden cusku di'e
> > > > Huh? I don't see how either of the above addresses logical connectives
> > > > for this. 
> > [...]
> > > Anyway, all this is to say that whatever rules apply to 
> > > {ko'a e ko'e} should equally apply to {ro le re co'e}, since
> > > logically they are essentially the same thing.
> > 
> > What chapter, please?
> 
> Woldy is the gospel for Lojban but not for logic.

I had misunderstood xorxes' claim. I suggest you read further in
the thread.

[...]
> Or at least, that attitude I've just described is a premise of
> these jboske discussions. The premise can be rejected by a
> CLL-fundamentalist (who, I'm sure, would be disavowed by CLL's
> author), but such a rejection does render participation in the
> discussions somewhat unproductive.

Chapter one:
...
You can learn the language described here with assurance that
(unlike previous versions of Lojban and Loglan, as well as most
other artificial languages) it will not be subject to further
fiddling by language-meisters.
...

If even the book's author disclaims that goal, as you claim he
would, then this language is seriously fucked. However, I don't
think that that goal would be disclaimed by all but a small (and
unfortunately loud) minority of "lojbanists". Though there are
certainly a few who would say they are in favor of that goal, but
act the opposite.

So thankfully the massive amount of fiddling which you are hilariously
referring to as "jboske" is more or less inconsequential. Certainly
postings on the wiki have far more import than messages sent around
the list, though, due to their lack of transience.

-- 
Jordan DeLong - [email-masked]
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku