On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Robin Lee Powell
<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 06:54:45AM -0600, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 4:21 AM, gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:37:48 PM UTC+4, ianek wrote:
> >> Fine, I've just added aionys' complaints about familial gismu, and also
> >> xorxes' proposed definition of xruti. If anynone knows about other proposed
> >> changes, please check whether they're there and if not, add them.
> >>
> >
> > What's that with {xruti}? It's agentive, don't touch it!
> > Let's create another experimental gismu with the definition {x1 (agent)
> > returns to origin/earlier state x3 from x4} or possibly with another order
> > of sumti.
> > But {xruti} must retain the meaning.
> > *OTHERWISE WE'LL LOSE COMPATIBILITY WITH OLDER TEXTS.*
> >
>
[snip]
>
> Second, you are over-reacting. Also, it is my personal opinion that,
> especially in the case of xruti, breaking older text is worth not having a
> broken place structure.
>
[snip]
>
> In short, we do /not/ make new gismu unless it is /absolutely/ necessary.
FWIW, as the apparent overlord these days, I disagree, *strongly*,
with both of those points. gismu should not be changed unless it
can be shown that particular places have been very rarely used
correctly, and I think making a bunch more gismu is a great idea.
When CLLv1.1 is done, maybe I'll have time to finish my essay on the
latter issue, and word creation in general.
-Robin