From araizen@newmail.net Fri Aug 16 07:15:34 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 16 Aug 2002 14:15:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 64566 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 14:15:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Aug 2002 14:15:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO out.tapuz.co.il) (212.150.54.158) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 14:15:32 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer ([62.0.182.60]) by out.tapuz.co.il ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:20:38 +0200 Message-ID: <008201c24537$da31a680$3cb6003e@oemcomputer> To: "lojban list" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020810111025.032cb880@pop.east.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020811195117.031545b0@pop.east.cox.net> Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: zo xruti xruti Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:00:16 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Adam Raizen" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669 X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen 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.