And Rosta wrote:
> From: pycyn@aol.com > Sent: 13 April 2000 10:02 > > The start is to Lojban "John made me hit him," ... I read this as a correct argument against (overzealous, overfastidious) sumti-raising, and the followup messages from Jorge &, eventually, Lojbab appear to concur. Was that the final consensus? I ask because Lojban Central & associated pedagogues have traditionally made a big fuss about so-called sumti-raising, which struck me as bogus. I therefore wonder whether what John wd call its bogosity has now been recognized by the politburo.
I dunno, since I don't remember reading this post by pc (not to say that I didn't - I just don't remember it). If I responded to something later, I responded to that later post alone. As for recognizing bogosity, it isn't entirely clear what position you find bogus, so I cannot say, but I don't recall changing my position on anything pertaining to sumti-raising in recent months. I make a big fuss about sumti-raising because it is a good pedagogical tool for getting people to think about what they are trying to say and getting out of malglico habits.
lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org