Re: [lojban] fu'ivla

[Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would use a cmene in that scenario. Also, I should probably mention that
>> I endorse .xorxes.'(?) proposal to treat cmene as normal brivla (i.e. allow
>> them to be used as selbri.) I personally believe that that simple addition
>> to their functionality would be more than enough to cause fu'ivla to be
>> completely deprecated.
>
> Just to clarify, I believe the proposal was to allow cmene to have
> predications, the default being {ko'a me la.cmenes.}, although they can be
> given specific predications, like fu'ivla.

Yes, I think the proposal was to have {cmenes} meaning {me la cmenes}
by default and I agree we would need much less fu'ivla, if any at all,
if we could specify other sumti places.

BTW, I also would also like cmevla to possibly end in {y.} whch I'm
not sure can be accommodated in the morphology.

I don't know if there's a formal process for proposing such things but
I guess it would involve demonstrating that the change would not
impact negatively the formal grammar (the PEG representation, at this
point).

Probably xorxes, alyn or robin could say if this is feasible.

remod

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.