From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Oct 10 12:48:41 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 10 Oct 2002 19:48:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 60213 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2002 19:03:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Oct 2002 19:03:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.40) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Oct 2002 19:03:38 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 12:03:38 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:03:37 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Usage deciding (was: RE: Re: [Announcement] The Alice Translation Has Moved And Changed Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:03:37 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2002 19:03:38.0512 (UTC) FILETIME=[BDB40100:01C2708F] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la djorden cusku di'e > > {ka'enai} would seem to be the best example of that, not only > > against CLL but also against the baselined grammar, and yet used > > by many people in many contexts. > >ka'enai is not an example of that. There are not enough speakers >of lojban for usage to decide *anything*. Ok. I meant that it is the closest thing we have towards usage deciding something against the baseline. It cannot be attributed to any single user, since everybody discovers it naturally by themselves. >Changing CAhA to allow >NAI deliberately is (a few) *people* deciding, not usage deciding. >So CAhA+NAI remains bad grammar (what's so bad about saying "na'eka'e" >anyway) for now (I suppose after the baseline CAhA+NAI may be >adopted). There is nothing bad about NAhE+KAhE. There is nothing bad about KAhE+NAI either. When Lojban forbids some potential form, it is usually because allowing it would cause ambiguity. In this case, there is no reason for the rule, so the only possible argument against using it is that the baseline does not contemplate it. A very lame argument for some. >So Lojbab needn't worry that your changes to the language will be >adopted (that is, unless you start writing learning materials ;P) I have written a few introductory pages in Spanish and posted them to the ideolengua mailing list (the Spanish version of conlang). Should I have submitted them to the LLG for censorship first? :) > > Many objections arise only after I bring > > the issue up myself in discussions. > >This is likely because for most lojbanists (myself included), sitting >down and reading more than a page or so of text is still quite >difficult (which is the whole reason that usage is not *yet* able >to decide anything). But don't worry, I'll do my best to complain >if I see you deliberately abusing something, though ;) You're more than welcome. I love feedback on what I write, so I can tell whether it is understandable or not. The revision and comments of the little prince translation that you're doing is very useful. >(barring >obvious standing complaints on lack of dots, and that weird --- >stuff for dialogue). Weird for you but very normal for Spanish and French speakers. Since I'm translating from French I thought I'd try it out for Lojban and see how it feels. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com