From rob@twcny.rr.com Fri Aug 24 09:51:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@telenet.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 24 Aug 2001 16:51:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 67150 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2001 16:50:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Aug 2001 16:50:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO telenet.net) (204.97.152.225) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2001 16:50:13 -0000 Received: from riff (ip-209-23-14-21.modem.logical.net [209.23.14.21]) by telenet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07897 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:50:12 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15aK9Z-0000Dc-00 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:49:53 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:49:53 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] soi dissent (was: soi vo'a: partial backflip Message-ID: <20010824124953.A799@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com Sender: Rob Speer From: Rob Speer On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 11:56:43AM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > 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. I suppose I would grudgingly accept that. I still think teaching the phrase {soi vo'a} and getting it ingrained in everyone's minds was the part which was the mistake, and we should just teach {soi lenei} from here on, letting vo'a be long distance. -- Rob Speer