On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 12:51:52PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> Jordan to Craig:
> > Why aren't you complaining that you can't say "za'onai"?
> He well could be. In a former discussion about how to translate
> English "still" and "already", {ba'o nai} emerged as the best
> candidate for rendering "still" (as I recall). I guess {na'e
> ba'o} would do the job too, but it is certainly not true that
> nobody has hitherto supposed ZAhO+NAI useful.
I meant to say ze'u nai. There's a *bunch* of tenses you can't put
nai on. People presenting the 'case' for ka'e+nai generally claim
that it improves "consistency", when it does the opposite.
> > Anyway, I suggest we discuss this later as part of BF stuff, as it
> > will likely be a topic considered, though I think (hope?) it unlikely
> > that such kinds of frivolous changes to the grammar are made
>
> I think everyone would support the idea of avoiding frivolous changes
> to official documentation, but you have to realize that you have a
> highly eccentric notion of frivolity. Stuff you consider frivolous,
> other people consider to be entirely serious. (Or as serious as
> anything in Lojban is; you might argue that the entire enterprise
> is one great frivolity.)
Useless paragraph.
> The general thrust of the pro CAhA+NAI camp is that the unofficial
> rule "NAI has the distribution of UI" is what many people have
> internalized, through naturalistic inductive methods of learning
> the grammar. The argument is therefore that the unofficial rule
> has proved itself to be more natural, and since it is harmless
> and has the added virtue of simplifying the grammar a little, it
> is a candidate for being officially formalized.
This "unofficial rule" is simply an error. NAI is not a UI. It
is not a CAI either. I *highly* doubt the BF even has the authority
to change a cmavo to a different selma'o, so if they were to accept
ka'enai it would likely be done by hacking the tense grammar to
allow NAI after CAhA, and not by changing NAI to UI.
> If it were put to a vote, I don't know whether the conservatives
> or reformers would prevail. I suppose it would depend on whether
> nonactivists could be bothered to vote, since I have the impression
> that they tend to be conservatives, while most activists are
> moderate reformers. Anyway, if the conservatives won, I wonder how
> many "ka'enai" users would stop using it. Not many, I suspect.
> Maybe Nick, depending on his mood on a given day. So you're likely
> to end up with a baseline that is followed only in those aspects
> that command intrinsic respect.
I am confident that the more ka'enai users who give a bit of effort
to understand why it is not allowed, the more of them that will
abandon ka'e+nai of their own accord. I've not seen a single
argument for CAhA+NAI that didn't consist of "It's more consistent",
which is completely false, so I believe people can be convinced on
this issue.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgph4s1zAz4s7.pgp
Description: PGP signature