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

From: "Adam Raizen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:00:16 +0200

la lojbab. cusku di'e

> I should note that Nora opposes the xruti change at the moment, so my
> willingness to consider the change if written up does not mean that lojbab
> is giving up on the baseline %^).

What exactly is her objection? Is it primarily because it is a baseline change
(and that agentive 'xruti' is salvageable) or is it because she thinks that
agentive 'xruti' is better? There have been quite a few people who have objected
to the change, but all on the grounds that it was a baseline change; no one
claimed that agentive 'xruti' had any advantages over non-agentive 'xruti'.

> She notes that there are a few other
> words that have slipped through the agent deletion. fendi, ganzu.

Perhaps those should be fixed, too. It seems that those are less often used, or
have close non-agentive equivalents (e.g. sepli, nicybi'o), so the need for the
non-agentive form is less urgent.

> In
> particular she notes that sisti is now agentive, and she believes that it
> wasn't originally (parallelling cfari), and was made agentive because
> "usage demanded it".

Non-agentive 'sisti' is easily done with 'tolcfa', so that is not a problem.
There is no other satisfactory way to get to non-agentive 'xruti'.

mu'o mi'e .adam.