Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 12:25:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712191725.MAA17560@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism) X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1332 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 19 12:25:38 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU > >> >No. That's not how Lojban ka abstractions work. > >> > >> That is how I use them, and how they have been used since they started. > > > >It is helpful, I think, to distinguish between one's own usage and > >what is prescribed. Likewise, it is helpful to distinguish between > >usage history and what is prescribed. For example, usage history > >contains a lot of sumti-raising, but this runs contrary to the > >prescription. > > > >I was reporting the prescription. > > I'm sorry, but you will have to quote me chapter and verse if you want me > to believe that the prescription says much of anything about this. [snip] Better that you should respond "quote me chapter and verse" than "That is how I use them, and how they have been used since they started". Hopefully once I get the refgram it'll live on top of my computer in my office, so then I can quote chapter & verse. Anyway, as it happens I was slightly misreporting the prescription. In recent postings John has made clear how ce`u is supposed to work. --And p.s. How come you call John "Cowan"? Is that what he prefers? (I *hate* being called "Rosta" (not that I ever am any more, thank god): it sends me back to secondary school. I make an exception when you call me that, though, because I know it's just a machismoless peculiarity of your locutory habits.)