Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Rabbity Sand-Laugher

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:37:11 EDT

In a message dated 6/4/2001 12:09:35 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> .i la'aru'e vu'enaidai le xa'o troci cu burna le selfrati be do
Maybe, but people always ask for advice and comment. They shouldn't, if they 
are going to get huffy and quit just because the first show it wide of the 
mark. Of course, they should not publish their first shot until they have 
some reason to think they are going to do a fair job of it.

> .i .uu .u'ecai .o'anaidai za'a ca'o le nanca be li 30 ge no dada'o vajni
> selsku sera'a le ju'oske gi mo'a dada'o selsku bau po'o la lojban .i li'a
> na drani
Well. I once ran over everything back to 55, so I guess I can remember the 
last 30 ears or so. I thought there was some pretty good stuff on 
epistemology, though not all of it made the transition to Lojban (the only 
thing I can be sure that did off hand was {li'i}). So I agree that the claim 
is not quite correct. The part about not much being in Loglan or Lojban is 
correct, of course, but tends to follow from the fact that not many people 
are comfortable in the language. Of course, it is a vicious circle, for you 
can't get better without trying. And when you do try, you launch a 
landslide of advice and comment which all too often wanders off into a 
discussion of something else or into a mere 'tis-'tain't discussion of the 
passage. I don't know how to solve this; it has been around since the 
beginning and is still here. JCB tried an Academy, which, for various 
reasons, did not work very well but may have cut down on the discussion 
problem a bit. Of course, he revised everything published himself, which 
helped get good stuff (not always) but slowed down the process. How is the 
Lojban- only list faring?

> 
> .i se'o le prenu poi dukse terpa le kamsrera cu zukte fi li mo'a .i se'o
> le li'i cumki srera cu ferti le pu'u farvi .i ju'ocu'i sarcu .i ku'i do
> sarji le ka dukse terpa le srera ku joi le ka dukse snura ku joi le za'i
> ze'e darlu ja'e no dada'o .i ku'i .a'i ro jufra cu ckape kalte le cnino
> kampilno
Well, aside from not being perfectly sure about what kind of an end the 
number few is, I don't think I agree with this at all. Making mistakes is 
useful for development, if you learn from them and can correct them within a 
viable framework. But not having any significant success, not finding a 
framework, is fatal. So, I don't want excessive fearfulness of mistake 
makers -- or of making mistakes, for that matter -- nor of excessive 
security, but I would like enough to provide a chance for growth not a 
guarantee of death. Shrimp can adapt to handling an amazing amount of 
arsenic in their water over a period of years, but not to the same amount if 
it is poured in all at once. Is the arguing here so constant as to appear a 
state and to no purpose at all? I don't think so, nor apparently do most 
others, since they join in with considerable vigor. And that is because 
problems do get solved in the arguments (at least sometimes) and so each 
sentence does not have to be a whole new perilous hunt for good usage. Some 
bits get settled.

> 
> .i .ieru'e bebna le nu fanva la .alis. .i ku'i le si'o fapro ja'e le ka
> xlali cinmo kei cu palci .i la'e di'u dicra le kamjmive
> 
I would probably reverse {bebna} and {palci} But then, I don't see any 
vitality being disrupted -- that ought not be anyhow.