From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Feb 26 18:44:18 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 27 Feb 2003 02:44:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 47238 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2003 02:44:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Feb 2003 02:44:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 2003 02:44:17 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18oE1x-0001NT-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:44:17 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oE1l-0001MZ-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:44:05 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:44:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.111]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oE1M-0001Km-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:43:40 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-70-145.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.70.145]) by lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8A961E910 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:43:08 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 02:43:06 -0000 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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <20030226235347.GB22288@allusion.net> X-archive-position: 4187 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 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" Nobody has yet proposed *any* change to loi for Standard Lojban (the object the BF seeks to define). Nick is in the middle of trying to work up a proposal, but it's a laborious process. --And.