From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Dec 06 12:10:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Dec 2002 20:10:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 92635 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 20:10:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2002 20:10:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 20:10:19 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18KOnj-00018i-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:10:19 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KOnZ-00018O-00; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:10:09 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:10:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-server4.tampabay.rr.com ([65.32.1.43]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KOnT-00018F-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:10:03 -0800 Received: from macsrule.com (85.78.33.65.cfl.rr.com [65.33.78.85]) by smtp-server4.tampabay.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gB6KA185005540 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 15:10:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 15:10:25 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) X-archive-position: 3152 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rmcivor@macsrule.com Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robert McIvor From: Robert McIvor Reply-To: rmcivor@macsrule.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Jeudi, déce 5, 2002, at 21:58 US/Eastern, And Rosta wrote: > Bob McIvor: >> On Mercredi, déce 4, 2002, at 19:52 US/Eastern, And Rosta wrote: >> >>> Bob McIvor: >>>> Most newcomers to TLI have looked at both languages before deciding >>>> to go with TLI >>> >>> I'm curious as to what their reasons were. Do you know? >> >> One commonly expressed reason is the appearance of the written >> language. Another is the proliferation of cmavo >> whose semantics and usage, are constantly debated > > Is this because fewer people are around to debate Loglan cmavo, or > because debate happens behind closed doors, or because the semantics > and usage of Loglan cmavo is more settled? If Loglan is more settled, > how was that achieved? And do you think that BF should consult > Loglan solutions for insights? > I think it is mainly because Loglan has not tried to do so much with cmavo as Lojban. To begin with there are far fewer, of which only about 12 vv are attitudinals, there are, I believe, considerably fewer words for cmodifying time, place and mood of predicates, which also have prepositional and adverbial use (our PA lexeme), and a number of UI discursives. There have been in the past disputes about sets and multiples, counterfactuals, and the descriptors lo and loe (loe is 'the typical x' and lo 'supposedly the Trobriandian Mr. X', Perhaps these disputes have died because the principal debaters have died, and much of the rank and file accepted the academy decisions. I haven't studied Lojban cmavo, but from what I gather from reading the list, many of the arguments deal with cmavo for which we have no equivalent, and would express differently, and, as you will gather from the above, we also dispute some of the same things. Bob McIvor