From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Feb 26 19:05:43 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 03:05:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 7458 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2003 03:05:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Feb 2003 03:05:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 2003 03:05:38 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18oEMc-0001lQ-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:05:38 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oEMX-0001l1-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:05:33 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:05:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.111]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oEMP-0001kh-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:05:25 -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 8530D1EB0B for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 04:04:54 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:04:52 -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: <20030226235252.GC16549@digitalkingdom.org> X-archive-position: 4190 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 Robin: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:52:44PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 11:48:36AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:08:38PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote: > > > > There is no problem with loi > > > > > > Since more than one competent lojbanist disagrees with you, you are > > > prima facia wrong, even if all your points are correct > > > > Huh? This is a fallacy (argumentum ad populum). Statements have a > > particular truth value regardless of what we believe about them > > Whether or not there is a problem with lojban is defined by the opinions > of lojbanists, nothing more, nothing less. Enough lojbanists have > expressed the opinion that there is a problem that their beliefs mean > that there is a problem It's not so much that we understand official loi & think it broken. Rather, the official definition is impenetrably muddy. (That said, the general view is that the basic idea underlying loi is a real and probably irremediable mess, but that is not the sort of defect that the BF is constituted to rectify.) Jordan believes he has an understanding of current loi that is unbroken. The BF would give him an opportunity to put forward his understanding, in suitably well-documented form, as a BF proposal. It must be remembered that The Refgram is not a technical specification of matters semantic. It is a reference grammar -- an excellent one. It describes the language at the level of precision and clarity one would expect from a good reference grammar. But it doesn't aspire to or achieve the level of detail, precision or complexity necessary to *define* semantics. --And.