Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 19:52:26 -0400

At 03:34 PM 10/3/02 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>In a message dated 10/3/2002 11:43:36 AM Central Daylight Time, 
>[email-masked] 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 [email-masked]
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