From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Mon Mar 29 06:08:49 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 29 Mar 1993 06:08:49 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4929; Mon, 29 Mar 93 06:07:31 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8759; Mon, 29 Mar 93 06:08:49 EST Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 12:01:58 BST Reply-To: C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK Sender: Lojban list From: C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK Subject: Re: TECH: grammar updates To: Erik Rauch Status: OR Message-ID: <4LxBqL40CEL.A.ez.v20kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> THus lojbab: > > If the result of the debate is that "mau" goes away, then we are making a > significant change in the language, since it is one of the more used > cmavo, to my recollection, as well as one that dates back to Loglan. > > I thus suspect that there must be a way developed that allows the pragmatic > abbreviation implict in the cmavo, and that there will be opposition from > the conservative forces otherwise (unless this is "slipped by" on them, > which I cannot support). I would say, let's not take it away, but let's discourage its use. (Indeed, at one level, it could even be used in teaching in a sort of "This is one way you might try and do this, and some people do, but let's look at what it really means"). As I've remarked before, there are whole swathes of older versions that are no longer regarded as kosher, most noteably implicit sumti-raising. Colin