Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Another stab at a Record on ce'u

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:03:12 -0400 (EDT)

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