From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:44:33 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sat, 6 Feb 1993 02:13:57 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4495; Sat, 06 Feb 93 02:12:53 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 9540; Sat, 06 Feb 93 02:14:11 EST Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1993 18:11:38 EST Reply-To: Nick Nicholas Sender: Lojban list From: Nick Nicholas Subject: Re: Cleaning up a mess: modal constraints X-To: cowan@snark.thyrsus.com X-Cc: Lojban Mailing List To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: ; from "John Cowan" at Feb 5, 93 5:36 pm Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Sat Feb 6 13:11:38 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: John Cowan stood up, stood up some more, and spoke thus: *scowl* A not unmajor alteration proposed here, John; moreover, an *alteration* of entrenched usage, not a welcome disambiguating addition, like the empathy attitudinal. (And of course, while you're at it, be sure you investigate other changes floating about --- Colin's accuracy VUhU, my unclefting xe'e, and top priority (if not already implemented): making functions arguments of other functions in MEX.) In fact, I'm going to say something possibly a tad excessive, possibly misguided, probably a result of ill humour, but I'll say it anyway: In the first half of 1992, we had a living, stable language in our community. Right now, we do not. The changes, and radical changes at that --- that to rafsi, in particular, even if still not implemented, have guaranteed that. So what is my reaction to this latest? I shrug. The damage is done. Our language is back on the drawing board. So let's get the work over and done with, patch up what there is to be patched, and get on with our work. (It occurs to me, btw, that the x4 place of {traji} *should* be an x2, to match the pattern of {zmadu}, and, I'll admit, for dikyjvo convenience: {mi xagrai loi remna} sounds more sensible than {mi xagrai fo loi remnai} for "I am best of all humans" (cf. the obvious {mi xagmau loi remna}). *shrug* Do with that suggestion as you will...) Although I would prefer we ignore talk of a VSO Lojban... even if not proposed seriously. Such talk just carries things too far.) I'm not 100% convinced by John's explocation... well, let me explain: sure, {mi ne pu la djan. klama da} and {mi *mo'u pu la djan. klama da} aren't necessarily identical; in the former, {ne pu la djan.} can be dropped; in the latter, the "deepstructure" is {lenu mi klama da cu purci lenu la djan. klama da}; but... well, the status quo *is* expressive, especially in such cases as {ti xunre *mo'u semau narju} ({ti xunre gi'esemaubo narju}) and {mi pu *mo'u semau ca nelci}... well, ok, the current paraphrase is awkward. In any case, I hesitantly approve this change, on the condition that John *abundantly* illustrate significant *mo'u-ne distinctions, particularly with BAI words other than {mau} and {me'a}. I'm not as opposed as Lojbab to {ne'e}; I agree {dai} doesn't seem essential; and the best proposal is to make {nau} the new *mo'u, and {dai} the empathy attitudinal. "Kai` sa`n swqh~kan t'akriba` piota`, N N O nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au kai` sa`n plhsi'aze pia` [h [w'ra te'sseres, I I L IRC:nicxjo RL:shaddupnic sto`n e'rwta doqh~kan eutuxei~s." C C A University of Melbourne. K.P.Kaba'fhs, _Du'o Ne'oi, 23 E'ws 24 Etw~n_ K H S *Ceci n'est pas un .sig*