Subject: Re: [lojban] soi disant soi dissent

From: Nick NICHOLAS <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:21:34 -0700 (PDT)

cu'u la xod.

>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.

OK, if this is about wording, then I don't want this proposal to be any
different in nature than the convention regarding {ke'a}. So remove the
'overwhelmingly'.

I also think what Mark and Colin did way back makes sense, but agree they
shouldn't have done it, so I'm happy to retract the x1 recursion
constraint.

> And we ARE determining usage. Our usage, from now on.

I will still weasel, I fear. I will advocate long-distance only in the
lessons, but I will also say "but soi vo'a will probably remain an
exception as used by most people." (Even if I didn't mention it in the
Lessons, Rob, people would find it in the archives, and people won't
unlearn it in practice.) "So vo'a *may* end in practice being defined as
long-distance by default, but short-distance when context favours that
reading -- for instance, soi vo'a." And all this in an appendix in the
lessons.

Would that be better?

-- 
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Nick Nicholas, Breathing {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu}
[email-masked] -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias