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

Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban



On 17/11/2017 01:24, guskant wrote:


Le jeudi 16 novembre 2017 21:48:45 UTC, Ilmen a écrit :
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.


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.



doi la ilmen

I oppose myself to your understanding for the following reason:

I posted what to be modified on Camxes for {lo nu broda ba brode}, with an alert that it will make some features ungrammatical:

while you did not posted your modification on Camxes for {broda be ba brode} on the thread for {lo nu broda ba brode}:

Thus your modification on Camxes was not discussed for {lo nu broda ba brode}, while my modification was discussed for it.

I don't prevent you from restarting the discussion for {broda be ba brode} on the bpfk-list, though.

mi'e la guskant

If I remember correctly, most of those who expressed an approval said only that they approved of {lo nu broda ba brode} being equal to {lo nu broda cu ba brode}, without explicit reference to any specific grammar implementation of that change.

That is the basis of my understanding that there hasn't been any explicit judgment about {broda be ba brode} in the BPFK thread "lo nu broda ba brode".

As there seem to be disagreement on the matter, I think it would be good to continue the vote on whether to allow {broda be ba brode} or not, preferably indicating explicitly which PEG implementations are voted upon.

—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.