Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id GAA10583 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 06:55:05 +0200 Message-Id: <199602130455.GAA10583@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 527FA6A0 ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 5:55:20 +0100 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 18:22:55 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: cue X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 824 Lines: 16 lojbab > Otherwise, we have ALWAYS attempted to solve problems first by trying to > adopt a solution using conventions upon hitherto unexplored grammatical > usages. Sometimes, we have added a cmavo to an existing selma'o. > Almost never do we consider adding a selma'o (the current proposal ju'e > is an example where we TRIED desperately to put the cmavo into an > existing selma'o only to find that doing so raised more questions than > it resolved, hence it rated a grammar change - BUT the lambda marker has > been debated for *2 years* before we reached the point of accepting a > grammar change. I personally LIKE that kind of resistance to change. The lambda marker could perfectly well have gone in KohA. But John thought a new selmao was prettier. Well, that's okay, but it undermines your point. coo, mie and