From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Jan 27 09:49:18 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 27 Jan 2003 17:49:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 85974 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2003 17:49:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Jan 2003 17:49:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.111) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Jan 2003 17:49:17 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-61-189.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.61.189]) by lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFEFF1EA60; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 18:49:10 +0100 (MET) To: "John Cowan" Cc: Subject: RE: [lojban] za'e "postnex" Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:49:12 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <200301271736.MAA05817@mail2.reutershealth.com> From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin John: > And Rosta scripsit: > > > I agree that the way forward for Lojban is to have robust ways of > > indicating which dialect is being used. Unmarked or unclear mixing > > of dialects is what is to be avoided, because in that way meaning > > becomes indeterminate > > The trouble is that the conventions have to be cross-dialectal to work well > In particular, what about dialects like formal written English, which admits > no other dialects save in quotation marks? > > (Just being difficult.) How do software designers handle this problem -- of declaring their version in a way that is intelligible to files couched in other versions? --And.