From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Oct 04 16:54:05 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 4 Oct 2002 23:54:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 33517 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2002 23:54:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Oct 2002 23:54:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Oct 2002 23:54:04 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17xcJz-0004vS-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 04 Oct 2002 16:57:27 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17xcJC-0004uo-00; Fri, 04 Oct 2002 16:56:38 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 04 Oct 2002 16:56:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailbox-3.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.103]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17xcJ7-0004uZ-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2002 16:56:34 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-66-13.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.66.13]) by mailbox-3.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01B717892; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 01:52:32 +0200 (DST) To: "John Cowan" Cc: Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 00:54:11 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200210041943.PAA25069@mail2.reutershealth.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 1909 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin John: > And Rosta scripsit: > > > I don't have anything remotely approaching mastery of usage. My > > usage of the past, though it contained grammatical errors, was > > more saliently characterized for being perversely difficult, in > > that I deliberately tried to exploit the possibilities allowed > > by the grammar, rather than staying within the much narrower > > bounds of conventions of usage. > > As I recall, you would write > > le broda cu brode le brodi le brodo > > correctly but perversely as: > > brode be fa le broda bei fe le brodi bei fi le brodo > > which when nested a bit deeper caused the reader to go blind. That sort of thing, yes. It's not all in the past, either. When I went back to my last spofu fonxa thing to reread it, it was sheer agony; utter murder. (It was a good translation, though, mistakes apart.) Of course, that's part of the point -- it's instructive to find out what is readable and what isn't, & which bits of the language design are unusable and which aren't. It might make loi lojbo less glib about the multifariety of stones it has to kill every one bird. --And.