[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| Gee, it is nice to have somone else dealing with xorxes for a while. It is tiring and, whether or not he has a thick skin (he does), he has a persistence and cleverness in defense that can really wear one down. If Nick persists in his discussion, he should notice (if he hasn't already) that xorxes is using essentially undefined notion in the {buska}/{kairbroda} approach and that, thus, he can -- and will -- meet any objection to them by a suitable addition or moidification of the specifications, while insisting that that is what he meant all along (with appopriate apologies for faulty exposition). So, until you can get a clear refutation of a claim xorxes has made and locked down by further discussion, he will not give up (and probably not even then). I have not yet seen how he deals with {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le gugdrirana}, so I can't say whether he will find that that is false in his system or claim that it really is true -- or come up with some totally unexpected third move. I am glad that the stream has been broken. I think I will return to the more profitable task of figuring out what {lo'e} means, to which Nick's comments are the most advancing moves so far. My only questions have to do with things like {lo'e pavyselrirna} and, hence, the hypothetical nature of {lo'e}, with the seaparation between {lo'e} and {le'e} (Nick seems at first reading to be putting a lot of {le'e} into {lo'e}) and with whether "typical" is not unnecessarily limiting when ther are a number of similar notions that seem to require the same treatment and could better be handled (it seems to me now) as modifications within {lo'e} rather than totally separate notions. Nick: << pc, who as far as I can tell hasn't got a paedagogical bone in his body. >> Well, it is embarassing for a Professor Emeritus to say so, but I rather think he is right (and forty-some years of students would almost surely agree). |