Subject: [lojban] Re: The Any thread

From: "Craig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:50:58 -0500

>> >{lo} is not defined in traditional Lojban the way you want it.
>>
>> Yes it is.

>No it isn't. mi nitcu lo mikce == Ex(Mx & Nmx). There is no
>question that this is the definition given in CLL. Traditional
>lojban == CLL.

First, I wish to thank Jordan for trying to remove us from the world of
unbacked assertions.
Second, I wish to note that in each case, the 'unbacked' assertion was a
conclusion to what was above it. It is silly to answer a conclusion to a
message without responding to its content.
Third, the fact that anyone disagrees about the meaning of {mi nitcu lo
mikce} means that there *is* a question. So let's avoid the unbacked
assertions. Now, I know you're about to make an argumentum ad populum here
(or at least most people would) and claim that there are only two of us. To
this I say that I don't matter at all - I'm not good enough at Lojban to be
an authority here - but that I would list xod among the experts. That the
experts are divided tells us simply that this is a question, and we should
continue to discuss it until either they agree or the BPFK makes it
irrelevant by determining that future use of lo will do X.
Fourth, traditional Lojban == Baseline. This includes CLL, but is by no
means limited to it.