From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Aug 07 09:02:42 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 7 Aug 2002 16:02:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 57724 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2002 16:02:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Aug 2002 16:02:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.140) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Aug 2002 16:02:41 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:02:41 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 16:02:40 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: zo xruti xruti Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 16:02:40 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2002 16:02:41.0635 (UTC) FILETIME=[DC100B30:01C23E2B] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la lojbab cusku di'e >If it was in fact agreed, and no >example in the CLL enshrines the current place structure, you would have a >stronger case than normal, but under the guidelines I've received, I am not >considering any such changes and will not do so on my own. We don't have a >Lojban academy, so you basically have to convince the whole community and >document the change. The arguments are basically these: 1- Agentless xruti can be extremely productive in lujvo, as well as being very useful on its own. 2- agent-xruti is easily recovered from agentless as {xrugau}, but the opposite is not true. Neither {sezyxru}, nor {xruti vo'a}, nor any of the variants are very satisfactory. The arguments were developed and discussed in: http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9408/msg00099.html and its followups. The people who spoke up back then were all in favour of the change: Nick, Veijo, Iain Alexander and jimc. >In any event, having a different number of places in two different language >translations of the gismu and an agentive/nonagentive distinction >enshrined, strikes me as asking for trouble. Well, I'm not very confident that the English version of the gi'uste will ever be changed, so I prefer to at least have the Spanish version agree with the structure that I actually use. I could add a comment saying that some versions add an agentive place though, so that people who use only the Spanish version know there is a competing structure. It is not my intention to deceive anyone, I just want the definitions that I write to be consistent with my usage, and I'm not prepared to give up a useful word like agentless {xruti}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com