Subject: Re: [lojban] soi disant soi dissent

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:40:53 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote:

> Xod:
> #> 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 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.
>
> If you look at all the usage Nick collected together, you also find short
> distance vo'a not just with soi.

Nick only listed it once that I can see, and it was an accident (didn't
close off with kei).

Inside an abstraction usage shows we often want to refer to the main bridi
(la djan. djica le nu facki fi le gerku poi xamgu vo'a) (vo'a = John)

Whereas with soi, we often want to swap the terms of the same bridi (do
klama by. cy. soi vo'a vo'e)

> #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.

That's good. We all want the impossible: a compromise that gives us clear
usage of vo'a from now on, but deviates as little as possible from old
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