Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 38: lambda via new selma'o CEhU

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>> Because lojbab noted that it could be brought into NU by changing
>> "du'u" to "le du'u".
>
>!! Okay, yes - after all, it is true that it could be brought into NU.
>But why was it thought a good thing (bearing in mind that it very much
>isn't)? Can we move it back, please? [I will assume the answer is that
>the milk is split & it's too late to mop it up.]

Well, yes, it is.  But If not then what would you put in the x2 of djuno?
We have USES for du'u in NU.  No one has found much of a use for it in MEX,
because no one has found much use yet for MEX.

> Also please heed his
>injunction to make haste slowly, because I can't keep up with Lojban
>list at present, & if even I can't then probably noone but Jorge, who's
>a bit ubermenschy when it comes to digesting terabytes of email a day,
>can.

The making haste that is going on has NOTHING to do with Lojban List.
We have promised to get a book done.  WE have someone who is committed to
helping us get it publsihed if we don't allow it to be delayed yet again
by endless debtes over minor design points.  Cowan AND lojbab are tired
of promising and not delivering, tired of being stuck in a rut of trying
to write books while technical issues are being debated.  We have claimed
that the language design has been done for a long time, and yet everytime
we allow ourselves to be drawn into another change proposal debate, we are
tacitly admitting that it is not.  The vast majority of the community will
not even START to learn the language until we STOP changing the language by
prescription.

lojbab