From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Feb 12 23:55:39 1996
Received: from wnt.dc.lsoft.com (wnt.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.7]) by mail1.access.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA28176;  for <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET> ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 23:55:36 -0500
Message-Id: <199602130455.XAA28176@mail1.access.digex.net>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by wnt.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id 2A3D5D00 ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 23:52:27 -0500
Date:         Mon, 12 Feb 1996 18:22:55 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      cue
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length:  844


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