Re: [jboske] lo'e gadri: can we converge towards a resolution?

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

cu'u la xorxes.
> > I would like to make two further proposals (I want them to be
> > taken jointly, not separately):
> >
> > * cmavo for Average are lo'e & le'e
> > * cmavo for Unique are loi'e & lei'e and are made official.

> I would prefer the reverse assignment, so that usage is not
> invalidated.

At which point I say ex cathedra that if usage turns out to be only 
your usage, it is not a sufficient argument. It has to be a plurality 
of Lojbanists' usage. If you are the only one to have used lo'e 
extensively, that still cannot count.

Yes, this is adversarial, and I may well be wrong about you being the 
only user. But those are the ground rules for the BPFK.
--
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
* 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. *
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****