From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Aug 24 13:13:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 24 Aug 2001 20:13:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 10563 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2001 20:12:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Aug 2001 20:12:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2001 20:12:56 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7OKCtA01278 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:12:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:12:55 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] soi disant soi dissent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Nick NICHOLAS wrote: > > cu'u la xod. > > >> 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). > > Que? I think I read And's sentence incorrectly. > >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!! > > I'm sorry, but I still thought I'd formulated that: > > vo'a is always long-distance > * except when used with soi (Robin Turner) > * and when used in an embedded phrase which would end up being the > referent of vo'a (Colin Fine, Mark Shoulson) -- to avoid recursion You also said "when context overwhelmingly allows it", which I, as an alleged "naturalist", can't stand. I also have not been convinced that recursion is always a bad thing. > With the possible exception of the final clause (which I won't actually > insist on), isn't this precisely your "most obvious answer"? I think it would be a lot clearer if soi and only soi were able to change the meaning of vo'a. You can say "this > usage was mistaken", xod, but doesn't that contradict "let usage decide"? > If not, how not? --- I'm honestly confused here. Something has got to bend. And we ARE determining usage. Our usage, from now on. ----- "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