Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c0c::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c0c::234;
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>
 <0388885b-ecd6-64bf-b267-51f01dea749a@gmail.com>
 <a38ed699-e452-45ca-bb5f-d8b631e9e266@googlegroups.com>
From: Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50ab5e2d-17c9-5111-5199-ba5c5f26a833@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 20:20:10 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a38ed699-e452-45ca-bb5f-d8b631e9e266@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------6821A233C4AC317FD14B6509"
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: -4.1
X-Spam_score_int: -40
X-Spam_bar: ----

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------6821A233C4AC317FD14B6509
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 17/11/2017 01:24, guskant wrote:
>
>
> Le jeudi 16 novembre 2017 21:48:45 UTC, Ilmen a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
>
>     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
>>     <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=
.
>
>     =E2=80=94Ilmen.
>
>
>
> 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},=20
> with an alert that it will make some features ungrammatical:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-list/A8qyiW7Uod8/4WsRMNL7BAAJ
>
> while you did not posted your modification on Camxes for {broda be ba=20
> brode} on the thread for {lo nu broda ba brode}:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-list/kXZ5aBNPI_A/K8Hcl6h8EQAJ
>
> Thus your modification on Camxes was not discussed for {lo nu broda ba=20
> brode}, while my modification was discussed for it.
>
> I don't prevent you from restarting the discussion for {broda be ba=20
> brode} on the bpfk-list, though.
>
> mi'e la guskant

If I remember correctly, most of those who expressed an approval said=20
only that they approved of {lo nu broda ba brode} being equal to {lo nu=20
broda cu ba brode}, without explicit reference to any specific grammar=20
implementation of that change.

That is the basis of my understanding that there hasn't been any=20
explicit judgment about {broda be ba brode} in the BPFK thread "lo nu=20
broda ba brode"=20
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/bpfk-list/A8qyiW7Uod8>.

As there seem to be disagreement on the matter, I think it would be good=20
to continue the vote on whether to allow {broda be ba brode} or not,=20
preferably indicating explicitly which PEG implementations are voted upon.

=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.

--------------6821A233C4AC317FD14B6509
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">
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <br>
    <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 17/11/2017 01:24, guskant wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type=3D"cite"
      cite=3D"mid:a38ed699-e452-45ca-bb5f-d8b631e9e266@googlegroups.com">
      <div dir=3D"ltr"><br>
        <br>
        Le jeudi 16 novembre 2017 21:48:45 UTC, Ilmen a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
        <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left:
          0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
          <div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000">
            <div>On 16/11/2017 17:06, guskant wrote:<br>
            </div>
            <blockquote type=3D"cite">
              <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
href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/kXZ5aBNPI_A/discussion"
                    target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow"
onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D'https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/kXZ=
5aBNPI_A/discussion';return
                    true;"
onclick=3D"this.href=3D'https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/kXZ5aBN=
PI_A/discussion';return
                    true;" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">https://groups.google.c=
om/d/<wbr>topic/bpfk-list/kXZ5aBNPI_A/<wbr>discussion</a></div>
                <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>
          </div>
        </blockquote>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>doi la ilmen</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>I oppose myself to your understanding for the following
          reason:</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>I posted what to be modified on Camxes for {lo nu broda ba
          brode}, with an alert that it will make some features
          ungrammatical:</div>
        <div><a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" href=3D"https://groups.goog=
le.com/d/msg/bpfk-list/A8qyiW7Uod8/4WsRMNL7BAAJ">https://groups.google.com/=
d/msg/bpfk-list/A8qyiW7Uod8/4WsRMNL7BAAJ</a></div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>while you did not posted your modification on Camxes for
          {broda be ba brode} on the thread for {lo nu broda ba brode}:</di=
v>
        <div><a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" href=3D"https://groups.goog=
le.com/d/msg/bpfk-list/kXZ5aBNPI_A/K8Hcl6h8EQAJ">https://groups.google.com/=
d/msg/bpfk-list/kXZ5aBNPI_A/K8Hcl6h8EQAJ</a><br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Thus your modification on Camxes was not discussed for {lo
          nu broda ba brode}, while my modification was discussed for
          it.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>I don't prevent you from restarting the discussion for
          {broda be ba brode} on the bpfk-list, though.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>mi'e la guskant<br>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    That is the basis of my understanding that there hasn't been any
    explicit judgment about {broda be ba brode} in <a
      moz-do-not-send=3D"true"
      href=3D"https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/bpfk-list/A8qyiW7Uo=
d8">the
      BPFK thread "lo nu broda ba brode"</a>.<br>
    <br>
    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.<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 />

--------------6821A233C4AC317FD14B6509--