From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Dec 01 18:47:05 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 02:47:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 20063 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 02:47:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2002 02:47:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 02:47:04 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Igbw-00011i-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 18:47:04 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Igb4-000112-00; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 18:46:10 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 01 Dec 2002 18:46:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IgZx-00010f-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 18:45:01 -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 gB22obG9031821 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:50:43 -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 gB22obOR031820 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:50:37 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:50:37 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: ka'enai (was: Re: A question on the new baseline policy) Message-ID: <20021202025037.GB31478@allusion.net> References: <20021201203605.B52499-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="i9LlY+UWpKt15+FH" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021201203605.B52499-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 2856 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 --i9LlY+UWpKt15+FH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 08:39:17PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Craig wrote: > > >> Under the new baseline policy, would it be possible to have such com= mon > > >> "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. >=20 > Are you suggesting that to'eka'e is different from na'eka'e? {to'eka'e} is in fact different from {na'eka'e}. And both of them are completely different from {na ka'e}, which is what Craig thinks it means. > > >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, t= he First of all, ka'enai was dictated as incorrect. > > 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, i= t > > 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. "Let usage decide" refers to a time (which we are not anywhere near) in the distant future when people can fluently speak lojban. It does not refer to mistakes people make when learning. Usage is not sufficient to decide anything right now, and of the usage which exists there's barely any ka'enai---there's only a few people who would rather change it to be correct than to just take a look at the BNF and learn what the grammar for tenses really is (CAhA is not just like PU, neither is ZAhO, etc). Furthermore, I've never once said "Let usage decide" about anything, so it has no bearing on the consistency of my viewpoint on this issue. Your explaination of what "everyone" knows ka'enai means proves my point: some people who use ka'enai use it like to'eka'e, some use it like na ka'e. Furthermore, if you think it means na ka'e, why don't you say na ka'e? No difference in syllables, and the former is defined in the language grammar. Further it is more consistent with how contradictory negation is normally done. > First and last sentences of D5 of http://www.lojban.org/llg/baseline.html > indicates that ka'enai can be considered by the BF. The statement does in fact explicitly state that ka'enai is appropriate for the BF to *consider*. It also says that grammar changes are not to be considered something the BF should be primarily doing (no new selma'o, and rule changes are highly questionable). Anyway, I'll certainly vote against any frivolous grammar changes if they are put to a vote for BF stuff, especially one which adds a rule for ka'e+nai, which would be a bad change in my view. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --i9LlY+UWpKt15+FH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE96sp9DrrilS51AZ8RAo8kAKCTehkJZy0FzJP2inowlikobGx7gACffNIw CExxgvXbIZDrz4IHj9PvUA8= =fXtb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --i9LlY+UWpKt15+FH--