From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sun Oct 06 08:46:41 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 6 Oct 2002 15:46:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 29247 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2002 15:46:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Oct 2002 15:46:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Oct 2002 15:46:41 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17yDff-0001Jy-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 06 Oct 2002 08:50:19 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17yDeV-0001I4-00; Sun, 06 Oct 2002 08:49:07 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 06 Oct 2002 08:49:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailbox-11.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.111]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17yDeN-0001HK-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 06 Oct 2002 08:48:59 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-70-140.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.70.140]) by mailbox-11.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B5281EF04 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 17:44:49 +0200 (MEST) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 16:46:29 +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: <20021005203000.GA13575@allusion.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 1945 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 Jordan: > On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 08:15:07PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > Jordan: > > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 02:51:51PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > [...] > > > > The (non)availability of semantically equivalent lujvo is hardly ever a > > > > criterion for evaluating the utility of cmavo. > > > > > > You have done little to support this viewpoint except state it. I > > > don't agree with it. > > > > I claim that most cmavo can be paraphrased by brivla without change > > in meaning. > > > > If you don't accept that claim, we can discuss it further on Jboske. > > I challenge you to make a brivla which does ".i" and "zo'u", or "le" and > "lo". > > *Some* cmavo, primarily the ones in UI which just freely modify > things could be easily reorganized as a brivla, and in practice are > in fact stated that way frequently. (You see gleki leza'i do broda > as much as .ui do broda). But in general I think this claim is > just patently false, unless you are also intending major grammar > changes at the same time (in which case no one should be listening > to you anyway). > > I'm not on jboske, and don't intend to be. I am convinced that Jboske is the appropriate forum for discussing these matters, and a willingness to be on Jboske is a necessary sign of willingness to enter discussion in a suitably cooperative and collaborative frame of mind. I am in fact slightly relieved that you don't intend to be on Jboske, and presumably you will likewise be relieved that I intend to do my part in purefying Lojban list of jboske matters. --And.