From xod@thestonecutters.net Sun Dec 01 17:40:01 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 01:40:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 80047 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 01:40:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2002 01:40:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 01:40:00 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18IfZ2-0000la-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 17:40:00 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IfYx-0000lJ-00; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 17:39:55 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 01 Dec 2002 17:39:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IfYp-0000lA-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 17:39:47 -0800 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gB21dH155041 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:39:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:39:17 -0500 (EST) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] ka'enai (was: Re: A question on the new baseline policy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021201203605.B52499-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 2852 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Invent Yourself Reply-To: xod@thestonecutters.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, 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. Are you suggesting that to'eka'e is different from na'eka'e? > >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. First and last sentences of D5 of http://www.lojban.org/llg/baseline.html indicates that ka'enai can be considered by the BF. -- Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.