[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la pycyn. cusku di'e > 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'm not sure about a lot of things in this discussion, but I do think that xorxes has been consistent in given a well-defined definition for his use of lo'e from the start, and has not changed it. And also seems to think so, so I'm not the only one. You on the other hand seem to jump around a bit, but maybe that's just due to thick-headedness on my part.
mu'o mi'e .adam.