From - Wed Feb 14 12:49:10 1996 Received: from wnt.dc.lsoft.com (wnt.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.7]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id AAA19731 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 00:28:38 -0500 Message-Id: <199602130528.AAA19731@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by wnt.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id 2B26E7C0 ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 23:52:29 -0500 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: John Cowan Status: O 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