Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.19;
Message-ID: <5188CA3A.9000104@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 11:32:42 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Robin retry: commands.
References: <20130504201243.GE20411@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <51856E57.2010808@gmx.de> <20130504202515.GG20411@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <CAHxnAm+NUxq=seQpKCgLT9Wmoouj4ypJMZeXBxNFDz3m3s8v_Q@mail.gmail.com> <55921D19-DB32-4D41-B6E9-1552B5BC9AB3@yahoo.com> <CAHxnAmKZTxe4Ps0H0WhVyY2k3WoiFi3=3zXsgRoW3EAg3jpJEw@mail.gmail.com> <3A8DBDCA-994A-4A20-9BAD-A3A4F3561B49@yahoo.com> <CAHxnAmLZ0WLPyTWqfLj=dsh+kBDcWdkh+qmrVnEJNs9mteoCZw@mail.gmail.com> <5F42DC95-D2C4-4B0D-B018-A4BC82AAFB06@yahoo.com> <CAHiXx=MzU2uukh7VfJsfOREStCkY3pBrDVKzCFghmRLumZA3Xg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHxnAmK7VEvD+7n1YB1hd4S0EqK0GBTOWRdG6fppAvfoPsFP4w@mail.gmail.com> <CALm==BUm693hFg+hstkOmEDM16x_w=z56oJ8oJgp-06Bf1DCtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOQ8VDWLdPm7D_UqVK0FVkOaGrXCeUxuyESyt1QVfhUEkeL=-g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ8VDWLdPm7D_UqVK0FVkOaGrXCeUxuyESyt1QVfhUEkeL=-g@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la tsani cu cusku di'e
> On 6 May 2013 09:47, .arpis. <rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com
>     Yes, but the discussion is about whether to redefine (or at least to
>     use dialectically) {e'i} to be more in line with {e'o}, {e'u}, and
>     {e'a}.
>
>
> In case we're taking votes, I vote in favour of redefining it.
> Dialectically, it is already used that way by the handful of typical IRC
> jbopre.

An even better reason than that would be that this {.e'i} is, as arpis 
said, more in line with the rest of {.e'o}, {.e'u} and {.e'a} (and 
{.e'e} if its new definition goes through, which I hope very much).

Even if nobody used {.e'i} in the proposed sense at the moment, it would 
still be a good idea. However, gleki is bringing up a good point, which 
we will have to sort out if we are to push new-{.e'i} in good 
conscience: What to do about the old meaning of {.e'i}?

> A command to "not do" ? Sounds like {.e'o do na broda}. Why should the
> attitudinal just "include negation". Sounds like an extremely pointless
> feature. The BPFK's idea seems best. {.i .e'onai do da pinxe} -> "Would
> you like something to drink?"

Very much agreed. Negation can always be done with {na} instead.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.