From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Feb 26 15:53:54 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 26 Feb 2003 23:53:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 21777 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 23:53:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2003 23:53:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 23:53:53 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18oBN3-0004Y6-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:53:53 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oBMq-0004XX-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:53:40 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:53:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18oBMf-0004X6-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:53:29 -0800 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:53:29 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly Message-ID: <20030226235329.GD16549@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20030226233657.GE17377@digitalkingdom.org> <20030226235347.GB22288@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030226235347.GB22288@allusion.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i X-archive-position: 4180 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 On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:53:47PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 03:36:57PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:49:30PM -0500, Craig wrote: > > > >is too baroque to be acceptable (or that there is no problem with > > > >{loi} to be solved), but I'll just have to lump it. > > > > > > I don't know what the problem with {loi} is, and when the BPFK > > > appears and we all get a veto I will veto any change to {loi} that > > > doesn't demonstrate that there is one. In fact, I plan to veto any > > > change to the language that doesn't solve a problem which is > > > either obvious or explained in the proposal; > > > > Even if the change is backwards compatible and other people see a > > problem? > > The changes people want to loi aren't backward compatible. They range > from complete gadri overhauls, to redefining the meaning of "lo". Nick is working on a proposal that will not invalidate past lojban text; I don't know the details. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi