On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 12:57:31PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 02:41:51AM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
[...]
> > 2. ka'enai
> >
> > My current position on ka'enai: we should not change it, because that
> > exceeds our mandate, as it would cause a major grammar change.
>
> I debate 'major'. Having just checked the grammar, I'd suggest that
> allowing NAI after CAhA is closer to 'trivial' then 'major'.
>
> This doesn't necessarily change anything, but it's a point I wanted to
> make. It's also an additive-only change.
[...]
Adding NAI after CAhA *is* trivial. However, most of the proponents
of ka'e+nai would rather move nai to selma'o UI and destroy selma'o
NAI, which is a *huge* (massive, barda, gigantic, rotsu, etc) grammar
change.
--
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:
pgpKeF16NA7r6.pgp
Description: PGP signature