From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Fri Aug 24 09:30:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 24 Aug 2001 16:30:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 70893 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2001 16:27:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Aug 2001 16:27:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2001 16:27:24 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:06:00 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:32:57 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:32:32 +0100 To: lojban Subject: soi disant soi dissent Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta Xod: #> OTOH, doing what Nick proposes, and formalizing usage patterns into #doc= umented 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.=20 The book/mahoste conflict was a mistake, but was the usage 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.=20 If you look at all the usage Nick collected together, you also find short distance vo'a not just with soi.=20 #I want to #be able to know certainly what vo'a means. And we would like to try to #adhere to prior usage. Nick's proposal adheres to prior usage. Anyway, I won't carry on arguing for grungey vo'a. --And.