Re: zo xruti xruti

["araizen" <araizen@newmail.net>]

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> The arguments are basically these:

The only argument against that I know of is that it's probably a 
baseline change. I agree that the current place structure is 
completely broken, and I personally always use 'xruti' non-
agentively; however, since it is a baseline change I don't think that 
the definition should be changed. Everyone is encouraged to 
use 'xruti' non-agentively (which shouldn't be very hard), and 
hopefully at the the baseline period, or whenever the gismu are 
defined in lojban, the only naturaly possibility will be to 
make 'xruti' non-agentive.

It might be possible to slip the change in 'xruti' in as a change 
which was agreed upon, but for whatever reason not implemented, in 
which case 'xruti' would be an exception. However, the point still 
stands in relationship to other broken parts of the baseline. If you 
make official baseline changes, some people will say that 'they're 
still changing the language' and refrain from learning it.

mu'o mi'e .adam.