From ragnarok@pobox.com Wed Nov 14 16:49:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 15 Nov 2001 00:49:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 90842 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2001 00:49:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Nov 2001 00:49:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2001 00:49:02 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A0FDC0600EA; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 19:49:01 -0500 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu? Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 19:47:26 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >If you were a linguist investigating the language of a newly discovered >tribe far away, would you tell them their grammatical structures were >stupid and needed fixing? You would be accused of the worst sort of >hegemonic imperialism. Well, why are you trying to assert your >Englishistic biases upon Lojban? No, I would likely be the one classifying their grammar (IE creating the selma'o) so I would try to classify it reasonably. If they already had selma'o I would try to find out why xu is a UI, but if I learned that it was because someone said "Let's make xu a UI" I would question the rationale of that someone.