From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Fri Aug 24 08:51:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 24 Aug 2001 15:50:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 57576 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2001 15:49:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Aug 2001 15:49:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2001 15:49:44 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:28:19 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:55:16 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:54:51 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] soi vo'a: partial backflip Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta Rob: On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 04:12:08PM -0700, Nick NICHOLAS wrote: #> I would prefer vo'a to be unambiguous in all cases; but usage has not, a= nd #> will continue to not respect that, and it's better to at least encode #> these usage tendencies as conventions. Moreover, the fact that the cmavo #> list and the refgramm contradict each other means this is now up in the #> air; why not take account of usage in cleaning this up? # #I don't like this. vo'a was one of the pronouns for which it is possible t= o #absolutely tell what its referent is; there aren't many others. OTOH, doing what Nick proposes, and formalizing usage patterns into documen= ted conventions, will serve as explicit and warning testimony to=20 the fuckups that arise by leaving things to usage to decide. --And.