Re: [lojban] Retraction, Part 1

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la nitcion cusku di'e

> Lesson 14 currently says in an exercise that the 'chicken' Zhang is
> building out of pretzels should not be described as {lo jipci}, but {le
> jipci}. Should this now be eliminated?

At least it should be modified, because the alternative to {lo jipci}
is {lo jipci tarmi} not {le jipci}. There's no reason why the pretzel
nature of the object would require a definite instead of an indefinite
reference. And if you're brave enough you might want to explain why it
should be {lo tarmi be lo'e jipci} and not {lo tarmi be lo jipci}.

> I still think it is capricious and misleading to call the Web a {cukta},
> especially in devising a {lujvo} for it intended for common use.

I tend to agree with you on this. I'd go with {la ueb} or
{la seljivbu} . {la'o gy WWW gy} is horrible and unpronounceable.

> I am personally vexed that the outcry against the 'filled places' proposal
> was not raised during the three months the lesson has been available for
> public review (though admittedly it was stated only tentatively there).

I have the impression that I did mention it to you in my comments,
but I may be wrong. I certainly recall making the point about {ke'a},
and I suspect I also said something about {ce'u}, but I can't check
it as I haven't kept those mails.

> {zi'o} My understanding nonetheless was that it was treated as an 
> "emergency
> use only" sumti, whose use was discouraged, in favour of using the "right"
> gismu (or, as has correctly been pointed out here, brivla.)

My feelings precisely.

> You
> will not find {zi'o} much used immediately after it was proposed, but that
> does not mean people aren't going to start using it.

Mercifully it has not been used very much so far.

> We now have two understandings of {ka} abstractions. One is that {ka}
> abstractions always have a {ce'u} place (Raizen, Rosta, xod, now Cowan);

Me too.

> Like I said,
> we've never had errata before, and I have a strong suspicion this
> clarification may be blocked as violating the baseline. On this, too, I
> will be overjoyed to be proven wrong.

I don't agree we've never had errata before. I remember telling
John before the book was published (when it seemed that it never
would be, as the publishing date was postponed year after year)
that I had no doubts there were things that were wrong in it, but
even so the book was so excellent that it made no sense to keep
fixing it for ever. The jei/ni affair seems to me at least
as significant as the ce'u stuff. I don't see how reaching a
consensus on this that does not quite match what the book says
can be all that much of a problem.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp