From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Aug 24 09:00:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 24 Aug 2001 16:00:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 77415 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2001 15:56:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Aug 2001 15:56:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2001 15:56:45 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7OFui629243 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:56:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:56:43 -0400 (EDT) To: lojban Subject: soi dissent (was: 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: > 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, and > #> 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 to > #absolutely tell what its referent is; there aren't many others. > > OTOH, doing what Nick proposes, and formalizing usage patterns into documented conventions, will serve as explicit and warning testimony to > the fuckups that arise by leaving things to usage to decide. This wasn't left to usage intentionally, it was a mistake. The real problem is that vo'a was usually intended as long-distance when alone, and usually short-distance when used with soi. The obvious answer is to make it long-distance when there is no soi, and short when there is. I want to be able to know certainly what vo'a means. And we would like to try to adhere to prior usage. ----- "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