From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:44:36 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 1 Jun 1993 23:34:23 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4882; Tue, 01 Jun 93 23:33:26 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 7225; Tue, 01 Jun 93 23:33:22 EDT Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 23:31:55 EDT Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: TECH: pe'a/po'a proposal (long) X-To: nsn@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Tue Jun 1 19:31:55 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: The reason for having N/S/E/W directions in FAhA is because there are specific languages where those are basic to the language -i.e. the preferred form of specifying direction. I agree that we shouldn't try to encompass all possible directions, but paying heed to non-Indo-European basic structures is the least we can do for cultural neutrality. I myself rather dislike fi'o constructs, which seem popular (at least on the list) these days. I mean we only put the thing in because we wanted to keep from having an open-ended set of BAIs. I tend to think of fi'o as a crutch for people who are trying to capture the sense of a foreign language closely, where that language has a word that adverbs in a non-BAI manner. (adverbs non-BAI-ly - now there is an interesting Lojbanization challenge!) lojbab