Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.15 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.15;
Message-ID: <51A379EF.3020803@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 17:21:19 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla
References: <CAHxnAmJvBZ1_4S1OF45n3dd5g2iQmFEGiQbsyBTN6PwybsNkrA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHxnAmJvBZ1_4S1OF45n3dd5g2iQmFEGiQbsyBTN6PwybsNkrA@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 .betsemes. cu cusku di'e
> coi rodo
> While reading the other thread on commands, I noticed this sentence by la gleki:
>
> "e'i si ei si xoi si sei bilga mi bazu troci lo ka stika lo tatoebas jufra"
>
> "lo tatoebas jufra" is ungrammatical according to standard lojban, but
> I have been seeing around that de facto may be different from the
> standard. I now think that standard lojban naming rules are broken,
> and using cmevla as brivla is the way to go, at least on the field of
> naming. I found this old conversation:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/lojban/rSXFTFeMA_o
> in which Robin said the rules weren't broken. I now strongly disagree.
>
> So my question is what's de facto on this subject?

 From what I've seen, there are a small handful of people who are in 
support of the merge of BRIVLA and CMEVLA, but that the majority is 
still strongly opposed, sadly.

For me, the Merge is actually even more important than the GIJA reform. 
The restriction on CMEVLA seems arbitrary and it introduces exceptions 
to the language that are hard to justify. (We can put {ku} after {lo 
broda} but not after {la .brodas.}, though after {la broda} is fine.)
Using names in tanru is extremely cumbersome, even though humans would 
normally tend to use names in such places a lot.

It'd be nice to hear what others think, but my hopes aren't too high, 
although realistically I feel it's inevitable in the long run. Off the 
top of my head, I know of around 5 people who are in favor (excluding 
xorxes), and the current authorities all seem opposed.

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.