From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Aug 24 08:30:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 24 Aug 2001 15:30:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 25081 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2001 15:29:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Aug 2001 15:29:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2001 15:29:52 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7OFTpc29097 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:29:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:29:51 -0400 (EDT) To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] soi vo'a: partial backflip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote: > >>> Nick NICHOLAS 08/24/01 12:12am >>> > #I've had a further think on lenu... soi vo'a, which xod brought up, and > #I'm doing a backflip. > [...] > #So I propose: > #* vo'a is by default long-distance > # > #* when context overwhelmingly allows it, it can be short-distance instead > [...] > #For the hardliners, as Jay and And have rightly pointed out, there's > #always {lenei} and {leno'a}/{leno'axiro}. > > Speaking as a hardliner, I like this. Subscripted no'a panders to the hardliners and grungey vo'a panders to the naturalists. I would hate to lose such a nice-looking cmavo to a morass of confusion like that. > > Could this suggest future ways of resolving hardliner vs naturalist debates? > i.e. have alternate bits of grammar, one version of which panders to one constituency and the other version of which panders to the other constituency? > ----- "It is not enough that an article is new and useful. The Constitution never sanctioned the patenting of gadgets. [...] It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures." -- Supreme Court Justice Douglas, 1950