From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jun 13 16:42:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 23:42:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 77889 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 23:42:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 23:42:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 23:42:27 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15AKHK-0004iE-00 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 16:42:26 -0700 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 16:42:26 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to attitudinals) Message-ID: <20010613164226.O14438@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i From: Robin Lee Powell On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 07:39:51PM -0400, Craig wrote: > Givent that there wasn't any misunderstood comment to start this thread to > my knowledge, how's this proposal sound? > > 1. We will assume that attitudinals have the meaning suggested by actual > usage. > 2. We will use attitudinals so that people understand what we are saying. > 3. We will shut the hell up about our fixes to attitudinal problems until > there is a problem to post about. You don't think that the question of whether or not the speaker of .a'o mi klama is asserting that they actually will/have gone is a problem? -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/