From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Dec 01 19:30:47 2002
Return-Path: <lojban-out@lojban.org>
X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 2 Dec 2002 03:30:47 -0000
Received: (qmail 88008 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 03:30:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2002 03:30:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 03:30:44 -0000
Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05)
  id 18IhIC-0001O5-00
  for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 19:30:44 -0800
Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain)
  by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
  id 18IhI5-0001No-00; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 19:30:37 -0800
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 01 Dec 2002 19:30:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root)
  by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
  id 18IhHw-0001Nf-00
  for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 19:30:28 -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 gB23aGG9032527
  for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 21:36:16 -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 gB23aGIL032526
  for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 21:36:16 -0600 (CST)
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 21:36:16 -0600
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: ka'enai (was: Re: A question on the new baseline policy)
Message-ID: <20021202033616.GA32484@allusion.net>
References: <20021202025037.GB31478@allusion.net> <LPBBLNNHBOGBGAINBIEFMEPICMAA.raganok@intrex.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <LPBBLNNHBOGBGAINBIEFMEPICMAA.raganok@intrex.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i
X-archive-position: 2858
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 <fracture@allusion.net>
From: Jordan DeLong <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790
X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out

--Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 10:04:34PM -0500, Craig wrote:
> >> > motto is always the famous LUD - Let Usage Decide. Well, U has D'd t=
hat
> 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 equival=
ent
> to
> >> > na ka'e). So if the language is reentering a period of change, ka'en=
ai
> >> > should be considered at least.
>=20
> >"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).
>=20
> In general, I respect your opinion - I'm just putting mine out there beca=
use
> 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.

I don't think ka'enai has anything to do with logic. Neither is
it inconsistent with the rest of tense cmavo. Why aren't you
complaining that you can't say "za'onai"?

Anyway, I suggest we discuss this later as part of BF stuff, as it
will likely be a topic considered, though I think (hope?) it unlikely
that such kinds of frivolous changes to the grammar are made.

--=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

--Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE96tUwDrrilS51AZ8RAmnAAJ9VWXICkXD7YpsQMsU5lagLAY1IkQCgioO5
fHWcyaonfnx8HHHTqCix71A=
=Mmbx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi--

