Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban

[Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>]

On 16/11/2017 17:06, guskant wrote:

2. Not all modifications to the grammar were put for voting.

Examples:

2.1. {broda be ba brode}

(discussion from 2016-02-23 to 2016-04-06)

It becomes ungrammatical under the agreement 1.2 above.

The proposal of making it grammatical again by modifying some parts of the grammar was not accepted by some people including me, and the discussion stopped without voting.

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/kXZ5aBNPI_A/discussion

As I understand it, in the BPFK thread {lo nu broda ba brode}, a majority of people voiced in favor of {lo nu broda ba brode} to become equal to {lo nu broda cu ba brode}. I don't think this entails by itself that {broda be ba brode} is no longer grammatical.
But if a clarification on that point is needed, we can have the BPFK vote on whether {broda be ba brode} should be grammatical or not.

—Ilmen.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.