From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Nov 05 14:27:55 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 5 Nov 2002 22:27:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 63359 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2002 22:27:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Nov 2002 22:27:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Nov 2002 22:27:55 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 189CAt-0006Uv-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 14:27:55 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 189CAc-0006UX-00; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 14:27:38 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 05 Nov 2002 14:27:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 189CAW-0006UJ-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 14:27:32 -0800 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 14:27:32 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] What the heck is this crap? Message-ID: <20021105222732.GH22843@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 2427 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out This message is about a thread on jboske. Here's a particularily pointful message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/message/712 Ignoring the incredibly rude tone of And's reply, the *content* is frightening. To wit: it is the opinion of the old-time experts that ca ro djedi lo nanmu cu cinba la meris lo nanmu ca ro djedi cu cinba la meris are distinct in meaning. More frighteningly, this implies that: ca le nu broda kei lo nanmu cu cinba la meris lo nanmu ca le nu broda kei cu cinba la meris are distinct in meaning. And pretty much everyone on jboske seems to agree with it. I don't normally read jboske, myself; xod pointed this out to me. This drastically changes the semantics of lojban as I understand them. As I engage in real-time conversations in the language, albeit with word lookup, I feel that I understand the basic semantics pretty well. Given all that, one of the following things is true: 1. The above are not, in fact, distinct in meaning. 2. xod and I are missing something in the Red Book (note in particular 10.23, which directly contradicts the above). 3. An erratta to the Red book is required. Which is it? -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ http://www.lojban.org/ la lojban. jai curmi roda .einai to ku'i so'ada mukti le nu co'a darlu le'o -- RLP I'm a *male* Robin.