la mukti cu cusku di'e
I'm not inclined to accept that no resolution is possible: It seems to me that there is sufficient general agreement to ensure that subsequent descriptions of the language handle this issue in such a way as to address the concerns that have been raised in the past.
What I don't understand is why, after achieving such a high consensus, we still cannot seem to call the question of existential import settled. I cannot recall many cases where so many Lojbanists all agreed on a thing, and here I see Lojbanists from completely different communities (as well as from different times) agreeing that {ro} should not have existential import. Is this not a democratic institution/committee? Or is it just that the two (?) nays are louder than the dozens of yays, again?
mi'e la selpa'i mu'o -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.