From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Dec 01 19:07:17 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 03:07:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 85954 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 03:07:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2002 03:07:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 03:07:17 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18IgvU-0001J7-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 19:07:16 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IguI-0001IZ-00; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 19:06:02 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 01 Dec 2002 19:06:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Igt7-0001Ff-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 19:04:49 -0800 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.67] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id ADB1A7210040; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 22:04:17 -0500 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: ka'enai (was: Re: A question on the new baseline policy) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:04:34 -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: <20021202025037.GB31478@allusion.net> Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: raganok@intrex.net [209.42.200.67] X-Note: Total weight is 0. Whitelisted X-archive-position: 2857 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 >> > 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. >"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). In general, I respect your opinion - I'm just putting mine out there because I think yours is worng. But there is one thing I must object to here. The bulk of "ka'enai" use NOT to be construed as a "mistake people make when learning", it is a conscious choice to be LOGICAL with our "Logical language" and use a form that is consistent with the rest of the language - despite knowledge that someone decided it should be considered incorrect without considering the rest of the language.