la tsani cu cusku di'e
On 6 May 2013 09:47, .arpis. <rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com
Yes, but the discussion is about whether to redefine (or at least to
use dialectically) {e'i} to be more in line with {e'o}, {e'u}, and
{e'a}.
In case we're taking votes, I vote in favour of redefining it.
Dialectically, it is already used that way by the handful of typical IRC
jbopre.
An even better reason than that would be that this {.e'i} is, as arpis said, more in line with the rest of {.e'o}, {.e'u} and {.e'a} (and {.e'e} if its new definition goes through, which I hope very much).
Even if nobody used {.e'i} in the proposed sense at the moment, it would still be a good idea. However, gleki is bringing up a good point, which we will have to sort out if we are to push new-{.e'i} in good conscience: What to do about the old meaning of {.e'i}?
A command to "not do" ? Sounds like {.e'o do na broda}. Why should the
attitudinal just "include negation". Sounds like an extremely pointless
feature. The BPFK's idea seems best. {.i .e'onai do da pinxe} -> "Would
you like something to drink?"
Very much agreed. Negation can always be done with {na} instead.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.