Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: zo xruti xruti

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 22:30:23 +0000

la adam cusku di'e

>The only argument against that I know of is that it's probably a
>baseline change. I agree that the current place structure is
>completely broken, and I personally always use 'xruti' non-
>agentively; however, since it is a baseline change I don't think that
>the definition should be changed. Everyone is encouraged to
>use 'xruti' non-agentively (which shouldn't be very hard), and
>hopefully at the the baseline period, or whenever the gismu are
>defined in lojban, the only naturaly possibility will be to
>make 'xruti' non-agentive.

But it is harder to encourage the more useful version if it is not
mentioned in dictionaries. People who never heard of the discussion
will tend to use what they find in the dictionary, even if it is
a bit awkward to do so.

Anyway, I have changed the Spanish definition to read thus:

xruti xru volver
x1 vuelve/regresa/retorna a estado/lugar anterior/original x2 desde x3;
[def. oficial: x1 devuelve/regresa x2 a persona/estado/lugar
anterior/original x3 desde x4]

This way the official definition is acknowledged, while presenting
the other one as preferred.

>It might be possible to slip the change in 'xruti' in as a change
>which was agreed upon, but for whatever reason not implemented, in
>which case 'xruti' would be an exception. However, the point still
>stands in relationship to other broken parts of the baseline. If you
>make official baseline changes, some people will say that 'they're
>still changing the language' and refrain from learning it.

It would be nice to have at least a note in the English and other
versions with a brief mention that some people use xruti
non-agentively.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com