From pycyn@aol.com Wed Jun 06 01:33:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 6 Jun 2001 08:33:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 87064 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2001 08:33:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Jun 2001 08:33:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Jun 2001 08:33:02 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.cc.160591e5 (18710) for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 04:32:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 04:32:58 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] multiple choice questions To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_cc.160591e5.284f44ba_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_cc.160591e5.284f44ba_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/5/2001 8:26:36 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 richardt@flash.net writes: > I doubt you really want that, but if you insist... JCB would be unhappy to hear this, but Lojban/Loglan is awfully SAE in many= =20 ways, including all that set and sequence stuff. So, they are not uniquely= =20 or distinctively lojbanic. {ji} is. I have no objections to the other for= m;=20 it works well in English and most other European langauge, and it works in= =20 Lojban. But I tend to use "Lojbanic" for expressions that catch the specia= l=20 features of Lojban: {mi prami do} doesn't seem very Lojbanic in that sense.= =20=20 In short, I wasn't objecting to your sentence, but to (Robin CA's?) claim=20 that it was "very lojbanic." (It is also longer than the {ji} version, but= I=20 don't think that is terribly important, any more than the missing {tu'a} in= =20 both versions.) --part1_cc.160591e5.284f44ba_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/5/2001 8:26:36 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
richardt@flash.net writes:


<Stop sugar-coating ev= erthing and tell us what you really think...>


I doubt you really want that, but if you insist...

<Since lojban has sets and sequences "built-in," I'd say constructio= ns using=20
them are very much in the spirit of lojban.=A0 It's not longer than the= {ji}=20
version, or particularly difficult to
understand.=A0 So what, in particular, is your objection?=A0 Having a=20
less-than-direct translation to English wouldn't hold much water.=A0 An= d I=20
can't believe you'd say that it has 'too much logic' in it...>

JCB would be unhappy to hear this, but Lojban/Loglan is awfully SAE in = many=20
ways, including all that set and sequence stuff.  So, they are not= uniquely=20
or distinctively lojbanic.  {ji} is.  I have no objections to= the other form;=20
it works well in English and most other European langauge, and it works= in=20
Lojban.  But I tend to use "Lojbanic" for expressions that catch t= he special=20
features of Lojban: {mi prami do} doesn't seem very Lojbanic in that se= nse.  
In short, I wasn't objecting to your sentence, but to (Robin CA's?) cla= im=20
that it was "very lojbanic."  (It is also longer than the {ji} ver= sion, but I=20
don't think that is terribly important, any more than the missing {tu'a= } in=20
both versions.)
--part1_cc.160591e5.284f44ba_boundary--