From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Dec 01 16:42:54 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 00:42:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 77692 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 00:42:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2002 00:42:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 00:42:54 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Iefm-0000X6-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:42:54 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Iefg-0000Wp-00; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:42:48 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:42:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IefY-0000Wc-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:42:40 -0800 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.67] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AC5D5BD0256; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 19:42:05 -0500 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: A question on the new baseline policy Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 19:42:23 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <20021202000958.GA30097@allusion.net> Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: raganok@intrex.net [209.42.200.67] X-Note: Total weight is 0. Whitelisted X-archive-position: 2847 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: raganok@intrex.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: raganok@intrex.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out >> 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. The problem with this logic is that for things that are not dictated, the motto is always the famous LUD - Let Usage Decide. Well, U has D'd that even though there is a prescription here, ka'enai is fine. That is to say, it pops up all sorts of places, and everyone understands it (as equivalent to na ka'e). So if the language is reentering a period of change, ka'enai should be considered at least.