Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0pg5aa-0000R2C; Mon, 14 Mar 94 07:53 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5617; Mon, 14 Mar 94 07:53:08 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5613; Mon, 14 Mar 1994 07:53:08 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3581; Mon, 14 Mar 1994 06:52:06 +0100 Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 14:49:46 EST Reply-To: Nick NICHOLAS Sender: Lojban list From: Nick NICHOLAS Subject: Re: The Mad Proposals X-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199403081439.20643@krang.vis.mu.OZ.AU>; from "Jorge Llambias" at Mar 7, 94 10:32 pm Content-Length: 2076 Lines: 49 First up, apologies for my continuing absence from the list. What with net access problems, thesis work, part-time work etc., this is unfortunately likely to continue (I now finally realise why Ivan has been silent for so long.) Jorge, as he had said himself, will not be surprised with my reaction to the proposals, which is the old "If it ain't broken" line. In more detail: > MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 1: > Allow {je} everywhere that {joi} is allowed. In truth, this couldn't hurt. It's an extension of the language rather than a change (albeit not a motivated one unless the other proposals get adopted), the problems with using {je} thus are already present wth {joi}, and it adds a symmetry (in reserve) to the connective system. I support this. Jorge's arguments convince me here. > MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 1 part B: > Eliminate selmaho GA. Nope. Freeing lexeme GA? I'd see no plausible use to which lexemes that short should be put to --- in the cut-throat world of cmavo, they'd be reserved for something pretty important, and I'd say most such bases have been covered. Plus of course, there's been too much usage of GA to justify this. > MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 2: > Replace {gi'e}'s by {gije}'s, and extend the grammar to allow {gijoi}'s > in the same function of bridi-tail connection. No. Almost all the cmavo that would have to be replaced in text are {gi'e}, and I think there are good intuitive, as well as conservative reasons, why it should stay. > MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 3: > Eliminate {gu'e}'s and replace them by {guje}'s. Also allow {gujoi}'s > to fullfill the same function for non-logical connectives. Yes. This cmavo family is likely to be available to cmavo plundering, has hardly ever been used, would introduce some joi/je symmetry where it can't hurt, and does little violence to the language. I don't know what we'd use for {gu} though, given I'd want GA to stay. I think this function will be so seldom used, we could afford to use, say, {gu'i} instead. > MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 4: > Change {ji} from selmaho A to selamho JA Nah. Nick the unsurprising.