Return-Path: Message-Id: <9205220402.AA16467@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Fri May 22 00:08:24 1992 Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU!nsn Sender: Lojban list From: cbmvax!uunet!MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU!nsn Subject: Re: proposed change to NAI X-To: John Cowan , lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 21 May 92 10:53:22 EDT." Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Fri May 22 00:08:24 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN >I am strongly opposed to the idea of a second cmavo of NAI, both for Nick's >reasons and because I believe it is far too late to introduce such a change. Yup. In any case, we can push the proposed {nei} into {xV[']V} space. Any chance of a NAhE KE tense negator, making NAhE apply only to a single tense? If we can't conveniently bracket-associate tenses, what about NAhE ZEI as the whole-tense-of-bridi modifier? Kludge, I know, but I'd rather allow NAhE to modify individual tenses. Or we *could* break up the PU-FAhA-BAI negation pattern. >I believe that it makes no sense to logically contradict a non-logical >connective: > mi joinai do klama le zarci >should not mean the same as simply > mi joi do na klama le zarci > It is false that you-and-I (as a team) go to the store >Instead, I favor the translation: > You and I (not as a team) go to the store. You mean it didn't mean this already? Yeech. Burn the mutha. Make the change. >I would be willing to abandon the whole mess of logically connected >abstractions (including negated abstractions). It was invented to handle >"three blind mice, see how they run" by concocting an absurd combination of >abstractors that were meant to capture the vague sense of "how". I think >that "kajeni" and "nujezu'onai" and so on are warts. (Nick looks astonished:) *THAT*'s what you wanted it for?! Krusta Kristo! *EXTERMINATE* this hack from the grammar; if you want to scalar negate {nu} and {pu'u}, take to it to bridi-space ({le na'e pruce je fasnu no'u lesu'u co'e}). No, folx, it's not inconsisent for me to reject {nei}, and advocate cleaning up (changing) the grammar. {nei} kills previous usage of UI+NAI ; a NAhE KE kills nothing in tense, and this NU+NAI business... *shudder* . Talk about hacks... Nick, Lord High Grammar-Kibbitzer :)