From xod@sixgirls.org Tue Aug 28 22:03:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 05:03:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 26989 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 05:03:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 05:03:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 05:03:13 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7T53DM01725 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:03:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:03:12 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Another stab at a Record on ce'u In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Nick NICHOLAS wrote: > * xod doesn't think {si'o} and Free {ka} are the same thing, and seems to > also think that if you mean {ce'u}, you should explicitly say it. I > construe this as meaning he doesn't like Free {ka}. If by "free ka" you mean a ka without any ce'u, I think any suggestion of its use is inexcusably bogus at this point in the discussion (with the sole exception kambroda = ka ce'u broda). The point of this revolution is clarity, not mindlessly reducing the number of words used. If that were the goal, be happy with my single grunt and enjoy figuring out the particulars from "glorking". For interpreting free ka's of old, there is no perfect solution. We'll do the best we can. However, precious few if any writers in the existing corpus used ka for "ce'u broda ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u BAI ce'u". Such a monstrosity was never mentioned in the Book, and it is to my knowledge a complete innovation. Given all that we have figured out at this point and the widespread agreement we have achieved, I'd rather not see ourselves distracted by oddball suggestions that are far afield of our consensus-momentum. ----- "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