Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c09::233 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c09::233;
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
References: <ef141db1-9811-4d44-8458-972ddffdd883@googlegroups.com>
 <78156dc5-1fb3-4e9d-992c-a8f30facc4fd@googlegroups.com>
 <SY3PR01MB0873C992D556B090F308980EEB510@SY3PR01MB0873.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CACf3dPnmCuGXQtxQOOrP9T9pDthhthx3rnoCdaFoai+fM8M6Wg@mail.gmail.com>
 <SY3PR01MB08733806D926A36CF1726EB0EB560@SY3PR01MB0873.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CACf3dPncGvkjQjbxL4MV_omG0R-e66V1CDcZFrt2hVU8iYWf0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <963393d6-a9f1-4232-be13-b4ee76eb69e1@googlegroups.com>
 <e7d4a3d5-4cd9-435d-bd3f-90c011172a10@googlegroups.com>
From: Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0388885b-ecd6-64bf-b267-51f01dea749a@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:48:25 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e7d4a3d5-4cd9-435d-bd3f-90c011172a10@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------251E1BD123664FEC7A040BD8"
Content-Language: en-US
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -4.6
X-Spam_score_int: -45
X-Spam_bar: ----

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------251E1BD123664FEC7A040BD8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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=20
> the grammar was not accepted by some people including me, and the=20
> 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=20
majority of people voiced in favor of {lo nu broda ba brode} to become=20
equal to {lo nu broda cu ba brode}. I don't think this entails by itself=20
that {broda be ba brode} is no longer grammatical.
But if a clarification on that point is needed, we can have the BPFK=20
vote on whether {broda be ba brode} should be grammatical or not.

=E2=80=94Ilmen.


--=20
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 e=
mail 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.

--------------251E1BD123664FEC7A040BD8
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8=
">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000">
    <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 16/11/2017 17:06, guskant wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type=3D"cite"
      cite=3D"mid:e7d4a3d5-4cd9-435d-bd3f-90c011172a10@googlegroups.com">
      <div dir=3D"ltr">2. Not all modifications to the grammar were put
        for voting.
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Examples:</div>
        <div>2.1. {broda be ba brode}</div>
        <div>(discussion from 2016-02-23 to 2016-04-06)</div>
        <div><b>It becomes ungrammatical under the agreement 1.2 above.</b>=
</div>
        <div>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.</div>
        <div><a moz-do-not-send=3D"true"
href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/kXZ5aBNPI_A/discussion"=
>https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/kXZ5aBNPI_A/discussion</a></di=
v>
        <br>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    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.<br=
>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    =E2=80=94Ilmen.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http=
s://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--------------251E1BD123664FEC7A040BD8--