Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.81]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17cZKR-0006LW-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:30:55 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-14954-1028759424-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.196] by n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Aug 2002 22:30:24 -0000 X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 7 Aug 2002 22:30:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 77761 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2002 22:30:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Aug 2002 22:30:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.194) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Aug 2002 22:30:24 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:30:24 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.44 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 22:30:23 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2002 22:30:24.0054 (UTC) FILETIME=[058B7D60:01C23E62] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.44] X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 22:30:23 +0000 Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: zo xruti xruti Content-Type: text/plain X-archive-position: 484 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Content-Length: 2214 Lines: 57 la adam cusku di'e >The only argument against that I know of is that it's probably a >baseline change. I agree that the current place structure is >completely broken, and I personally always use 'xruti' non- >agentively; however, since it is a baseline change I don't think that >the definition should be changed. Everyone is encouraged to >use 'xruti' non-agentively (which shouldn't be very hard), and >hopefully at the the baseline period, or whenever the gismu are >defined in lojban, the only naturaly possibility will be to >make 'xruti' non-agentive. But it is harder to encourage the more useful version if it is not mentioned in dictionaries. People who never heard of the discussion will tend to use what they find in the dictionary, even if it is a bit awkward to do so. Anyway, I have changed the Spanish definition to read thus: xruti xru volver x1 vuelve/regresa/retorna a estado/lugar anterior/original x2 desde x3; [def. oficial: x1 devuelve/regresa x2 a persona/estado/lugar anterior/original x3 desde x4] This way the official definition is acknowledged, while presenting the other one as preferred. >It might be possible to slip the change in 'xruti' in as a change >which was agreed upon, but for whatever reason not implemented, in >which case 'xruti' would be an exception. However, the point still >stands in relationship to other broken parts of the baseline. If you >make official baseline changes, some people will say that 'they're >still changing the language' and refrain from learning it. It would be nice to have at least a note in the English and other versions with a brief mention that some people use xruti non-agentively. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/Ey.GAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/