[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
zo xruti xruti
la lojbab cusku di'e
If it was in fact agreed, and no
example in the CLL enshrines the current place structure, you would have a
stronger case than normal, but under the guidelines I've received, I am not
considering any such changes and will not do so on my own. We don't have a
Lojban academy, so you basically have to convince the whole community and
document the change.
The arguments are basically these:
1- Agentless xruti can be extremely productive in lujvo, as
well as being very useful on its own.
2- agent-xruti is easily recovered from agentless as {xrugau},
but the opposite is not true. Neither {sezyxru}, nor {xruti vo'a},
nor any of the variants are very satisfactory.
The arguments were developed and discussed in:
http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9408/msg00099.html
and its followups.
The people who spoke up back then were all in favour
of the change: Nick, Veijo, Iain Alexander and jimc.
In any event, having a different number of places in two different language
translations of the gismu and an agentive/nonagentive distinction
enshrined, strikes me as asking for trouble.
Well, I'm not very confident that the English version of the gi'uste
will ever be changed, so I prefer to at least have the Spanish
version agree with the structure that I actually use. I could add
a comment saying that some versions add an agentive place though,
so that people who use only the Spanish version know there is a
competing structure. It is not my intention to deceive anyone,
I just want the definitions that I write to be consistent
with my usage, and I'm not prepared to give up a useful word
like agentless {xruti}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com