Re: Gadri for you

xod:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Pierre Abbat wrote:
>
> > On Monday 28 July 2003 22:28, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > > Sages, please read this file and comment on it. It is in an early
stage,
> > > and I'm not completely clear on the conflations of lo'e.
> > >
> > > http://www.thestonecutters.net/xod/lojban/jboske.html
> >
> > I don't understand why any of these new words are needed. The only kind
of
> > article I see necessary is one for sequences, since we have a
conjunction
> > that makes sequences.
>
> This is the rebirth of a discussion that raged here months ago, and now
> all the principals (Nick, Jorge, And Rosta) are mysteriously silent. For
> background, I suggest you take a look at the past 200 archived messages.

Give me a chance! Your message arrived only yesterday, & rather unhelpfully
did not include details of your proposal. At any rate, besides wanting to
ask that in future you post details by email & not just an url, I wanted
to reply just that it seems to me that the main challenge is not to
design a 'logically' satisfactory gadri system, but rather to design a
'logically' satisfactory gadri system that is also consistent with the
predilections of conservatives & fundamentalists. Unlike Nick, I have no
reliable intuitions about rationally-founded conservative/fundamentalist
views, so the only contribution I can make is to assess the logical
coherence of a scheme once it is deemed acceptable to the confundies,
and accordinly I've been waiting for Nick to post his scheme (& I have
every sympathy with the long time it is taking Nick to produce it).

In other words, I am leaving it to somebody else to come up with a gadri
scheme acceptable to the general lojbanist, and to persuade the general
lojbanist of the need for it. Once such a scheme is on the table, I will
see if I can find logical holes in it.

--And.