From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Dec 01 16:04:29 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 2 Dec 2002 00:04:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 32679 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 00:04:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2002 00:04:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 00:04:29 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Ie4b-0000Nw-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:04:29 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Ie4V-0000NU-00; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:04:23 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:04:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Ie4J-0000NL-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:04:16 -0800 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gB209wG9030278 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 18:09:58 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gB209wlM030277 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 18:09:58 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 18:09:58 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A question on the new baseline policy Message-ID: <20021202000958.GA30097@allusion.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 2842 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 06:41:25PM -0500, Craig wrote: > Under the new baseline policy, would it be possible to have such common > "errors" as ka'enai incorporated into the official language? The way I read it is that it's *highly* unlikely that any grammar changes will occur. Especially for something as questionable as CAhA+NAI, where it's not clear what it even should mean. In fact, you'd do well to avoid using PU+NAI/FAhA+NAI as well, lest you fall into the trap of thinking of it as something other than contradictory negation. -- Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku