Difference between revisions of "User:Jezrax"

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Line 23: Line 23:
 
* http://satirist.org/lojban/cuvjbo/balfihe/ - '''cnino xe fanva de'i li 2002;1;6'''
 
* http://satirist.org/lojban/cuvjbo/balfihe/ - '''cnino xe fanva de'i li 2002;1;6'''
 
= lo na'e lojbo poi finti fa mi=
 
= lo na'e lojbo poi finti fa mi=
* the Daily Whale - [http://satirist.org/whale/
+
* the Daily Whale - http://satirist.org/whale/
* Machine Learning in Games - [http://satirist.org/learn-game/
+
* Machine Learning in Games - http://satirist.org/learn-game/
 
= ba'o vajni =
 
= ba'o vajni =
 
* What is a good [[lujvo for aphorism|lujvo for aphorism]] or epigram?
 
* What is a good [[lujvo for aphorism|lujvo for aphorism]] or epigram?
Line 36: Line 36:
 
* Tinkering with the language tends to damage the community. Even arguing about tinkering with the language is bad. Seeing the debates nearly drove me away before I'd even finished learning the [[gismu|gismu]].
 
* Tinkering with the language tends to damage the community. Even arguing about tinkering with the language is bad. Seeing the debates nearly drove me away before I'd even finished learning the [[gismu|gismu]].
 
* I ignore experimental words and proposed changes in meaning or [[place structure|place structure]], and discussions of them.
 
* I ignore experimental words and proposed changes in meaning or [[place structure|place structure]], and discussions of them.
** ''[[Experimental cmavo|Experimental cmavo]] are officially part of the language. Do you ignore all of them too?''
+
** [[Experimental cmavo|Experimental cmavo]] are officially part of the language. Do you ignore all of them too?
*** Calling them a part of the language is arguable. A portion of cmavo space is set aside for them. Nothing is defined in it. You can say that experimental cmavo are a part of the language, but can you say ''xa'o'' is officially part of the language (truthfully)?
+
*** jezrax:
**** ''No. However, certain experimental cmavo and other unofficial constructs are used, and thus (tavlykai that I am) I would call them part of the language as it is actually spoken. For example, ''ka'enai'' is definitely part of the language - even though the book thinks otherwise. - mi'e. [[.kreig.daniyl.|.kreig.daniyl.]]''
+
**** Calling them a part of the language is arguable. A portion of cmavo space is set aside for them. Nothing is defined in it. You can say that experimental cmavo are a part of the language, but can you say ''xa'o'' is officially part of the language (truthfully)?
**** How many people have to start using and understanding ''xa'o'' before you'll consider it part of the language? Now, '''ka'enai''' is a good example of the actual language diverging from the baseline.
+
***** [[.kreig.daniyl.|.kreig.daniyl.]]:
 +
****** No. However, certain experimental cmavo and other unofficial constructs are used, and thus ('''tavlykai''' that I am) I would call them part of the language as it is actually spoken. For example, '''ka'enai''' is definitely part of the language - even though the book thinks otherwise.
 +
***** How many people have to start using and understanding '''xa'o''' before you'll consider it part of the language? Now, '''ka'enai''' is a good example of the actual language diverging from the baseline.
 
***jezrax:
 
***jezrax:
***:Yes, I ignore them. I don't know any of them or feel a need to. I haven't found anything I want to say that seems to call for additional ''cmavo''.
+
***:Yes, I ignore them. I don't know any of them or feel a need to. I haven't found anything I want to say that seems to call for additional cmavo.
 
* [[User:Bob LeChevalier|Bob LeChevalier]] is usually correct.
 
* [[User:Bob LeChevalier|Bob LeChevalier]] is usually correct.
  
 
=Website=
 
=Website=
 
*http://satirist.org/
 
*http://satirist.org/

Latest revision as of 10:54, 2 September 2014

  • Favorite word is still: ti'icki
  • Second-favorite word: zbaske
    • I invented this word to translate "technology", then discovered that nitcion had already used it to translate "engineering".

ca'o cinri mi

rants

lo lojbo poi finti fa mi

lo na'e lojbo poi finti fa mi

ba'o vajni

I am not on any of the mailing lists, because I carelessly read yahoo's "privacy" policy first. .i u'e mi bebna But I check the web archives regularly.

pe mi

I largely agree with Jay Kominek about Lojban policy.

  • Long live the baseline.
  • Tinkering with the language tends to damage the community. Even arguing about tinkering with the language is bad. Seeing the debates nearly drove me away before I'd even finished learning the gismu.
  • I ignore experimental words and proposed changes in meaning or place structure, and discussions of them.
    • Experimental cmavo are officially part of the language. Do you ignore all of them too?
      • jezrax:
        • Calling them a part of the language is arguable. A portion of cmavo space is set aside for them. Nothing is defined in it. You can say that experimental cmavo are a part of the language, but can you say xa'o is officially part of the language (truthfully)?
          • .kreig.daniyl.:
            • No. However, certain experimental cmavo and other unofficial constructs are used, and thus (tavlykai that I am) I would call them part of the language as it is actually spoken. For example, ka'enai is definitely part of the language - even though the book thinks otherwise.
          • How many people have to start using and understanding xa'o before you'll consider it part of the language? Now, ka'enai is a good example of the actual language diverging from the baseline.
      • jezrax:
        Yes, I ignore them. I don't know any of them or feel a need to. I haven't found anything I want to say that seems to call for additional cmavo.
  • Bob LeChevalier is usually correct.

Website