group loi rejected

[Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>]

God. Not more. And, I have to hold a red card up here. If I say 
"doesn't CLL-loi do job X here", it is not legitimate to answer "but 
CLL-loi is wrong, because it doesn't capture English groups." I'm not 
talking about English groups. I'm talking about CLL-loi.

If we do throw that issue open too, we'll have to reevaluate every 
single gadri at once. Come on, that's not humanly feasible.

If it is true that Groups are what we want to talk about, and loi 
doesn't do groups, we have two alternatives: change loi so it does 
talk about Groups; or admit that loi-masses are not groups, and maybe 
come up with a different way to talk about groups.

Because this is not Lojban Mark II, and the BPFK has a mandate to 
expand on the current baseline, not to annul it, I cannot countenance 
the first alternative. So you can say in Lojban {la .ioko'onos. co'a 
speni loi prenrbitlzi}, but you cannot say in English "Yoko Ono 
married the Beatles"? To me, that doesn't mean {loi} is broken. It 
means the English doesn't correspond to the Lojban. Cheap 
essentialism, perhaps, but one has to draw the fundamentalist line in 
the sand some time.

Somewhere somehow, I'll have to tune in to Jordan's discussion with 
you, because I take it {jaika} is being discussed there, and I have a 
vested interest in it. But this is getting too much. We've got {kau} 
and {lo'e} open; *please* let's not open Group =? {loi} up as well.

--
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
* Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian Studies nickn@unimelb.edu.au *
University of Melbourne, Australia http://www.opoudjis.net
* "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the *
circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson,
* _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. *
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****