Subject: [lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:19:18 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, And Rosta wrote:

> 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.

I am barely interested in defending my 'proposal'; if it isn't adopted on
its merits without a sales pitch, tough. But perhaps my paragraph about
feeling empowered to break usage distracted readers from seeing what was
in front of their faces: my solution for loi doesn't actually break usage.
It is a subset of prior usage. It is an "interpretive convention". There
is nothing in Lojban preventing me from addressing a glass of water, or a
river, as an individual, or as a part of a whole. And there is nothing
obliging me to use loi for groups that lack any emergent property: I am
always free to address any group with su'o lo.

Therefore it falls in the category of our ce'u changes: we have set
forth clear principles for the use of ce'u from now on, but older Lojban
must be read with the knowledge that the modern principles weren't yet
formulated, and it must be read more forgivingly.

-- 
Seventy-two city councils, including Philadelphia,
Austin, Chicago, Baltimore and Cleveland have
passed anti-war resolutions.