From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Oct 03 17:20:39 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 4 Oct 2002 00:20:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 57681 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2002 00:19:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Oct 2002 00:19:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao02.cox.net) (68.1.17.243) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Oct 2002 00:19:49 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021004001946.ODMH12192.lakemtao02.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 20:19:46 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021003194643.0329c420@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 19:52:26 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism In-Reply-To: <195.e4f30c1.2acdf5ae@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 03:34 PM 10/3/02 -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 10/3/2002 11:43:36 AM Central Daylight Time, >xod@thestonecutters.net writes: > ><< >>Records are fine, but they need to written on a level that all jboka'e can >>understand. All the Records I've seen were incomprehensibly dense. > > >> >Complex technical questions require complex technical answers. If they >give rise to simple questions, then simple answers will be available. So >far as I can tell, with the exception of the {ka}-{du'u}-{ce'u} complex >(where people criticized every view proposed and then rejected every >compromise that satisfied their objection, finally going back to the >position which had led to the criticism in the first place -- and I get >accused of wasting time!), no topic of fervent debate has had much in the >way of implication for usage -- at least not that anyone has cited. >( The {ka} et al fisco is the main reason for no further Records: I >realized that neither reporting the various positions nor formulating ways >around the objections nor opting for one position over others was going to >be an acceptable conclusion of a debate, so there was little point in >summing it up if it was only going to continue or start again -- or end >with no reference to the debate at all, as happened in this case.) But not all technical questions are complex technical questions. Some recent threads: Lionel's: >Is there a grammatical device to make some hypothesis marked by {da'i} sticky? Led to many messages, and I don't have time to read them all to find out if there was a simple answer. Jorge's >What do you all think of this: > > le plini cu mulcarna paroi ro mentu > >1- Is {mulcarna} good for "x1 makes a full turn around x2 >in direction x3"? > >2- The problem with {paroi ro mentu} is that the quantifiers >are in the wrong order. The alternative {ro da poi mentu zo'u >le plini cu mulcarna paroi da} is too longwinded and requires >forethought. Any ideas? Led to an even longer thread. Was there an consensus on an answer? lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org