[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: [jboske] RE: Lojbab on tu'o (was: RE: RE: Nick on propositionalism &c



Lojbab:
> >In every other way, Bob is wrong to the point of forcing schism 
> 
> I am not forcing schism, but And is forcing me to accept his schism, which 
> I will have to hope will be a schism of one 
> 
> I am tired of And threatening schism.  You seem to have talked And into 
> helping define "SL" before he schisms, but he still seems to have made it 
> clear that he plans to schism.  If he is going to schism no matter what we 
> do, and if he is going to threaten to do so every time I don't concede to 
> him, let him suffer jimc's problem and have a schismatic language that few 
> people care about except as a curiosity 

You misrepresent me as threatening schism in an attempt to bully you 
into conceding to me, when in fact I am doing the EXACT opposite. I'm 
not 'threatening' schism. I am despairingly saying that either schism 
or the genius of Nick is the only way to stop each of us getting 
infuriated with each other for perverting to the point of destruction
the lojban that is constituted according to our respective ideals.

The alternative would be that instead of adopting a live and let
live view that we are working on different projects, and me treating
you with the sincere respect that you deserve and with the affection 
that I feel for you (both personally and as president of LLG), we 
could take the view that we are working on the same project and I 
could treat your ideas and thinking with the contempt that they 
deserve and with the ire and revulsion that I feel for them.

My not wishing to pursue the latter alternative is hardly a
petulant threat. It's a wish to do the decent thing. 

> I hit my breaking point when And suggested that all ellipsis be explicitly 
> marked and that zi'o be the default interpretation for omission instead of 
> zo'e. The nicest reaction I can have to that is to laugh with great 
> ridicule.  We aren't talking about natural language use any more, or even 
> usable non-natural language.  And we certainly aren't talking about 
> anything having to do with Lojban 

If my fellow jboskeists demolish my proposals for AL then I don't
continue to advocate them. I don't actively advocate any proposals
for SL; I simply make suggestions in the spirit of helpfulness.

--And.