From pycyn@aol.com Mon Jun 04 13:57:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 4 Jun 2001 20:57:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 21352 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2001 20:37:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Jun 2001 20:37:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m07.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.162) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Jun 2001 20:37:18 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.3d.ca37186 (3876) for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:37:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3d.ca37186.284d4b77@aol.com> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:37:11 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Rabbity Sand-Laugher To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3d.ca37186.284d4b77_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_3d.ca37186.284d4b77_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/4/2001 12:09:35 PM Central Daylight Time, xod@sixgirls.org 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. --part1_3d.ca37186.284d4b77_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/4/2001 12:09:35 PM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org 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. --part1_3d.ca37186.284d4b77_boundary--