From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Dec 02 04:50:32 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 12:50:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 51285 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 12:50:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2002 12:50:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 12:50:32 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Iq1w-0003Bt-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 04:50:32 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Iq1k-0003BH-00; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 04:50:20 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 02 Dec 2002 04:50:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.111]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Iq1g-0003Ax-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 04:50:16 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-53-243.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.53.243]) by lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601161E79A for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:49:43 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: ka'enai (was: Re: A question on the new baseline policy) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:51:52 -0000 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) In-Reply-To: <20021202033616.GA32484@allusion.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 2873 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jordan to Craig: > Why aren't you complaining that you can't say "za'onai"? He well could be. In a former discussion about how to translate English "still" and "already", {ba'o nai} emerged as the best candidate for rendering "still" (as I recall). I guess {na'e ba'o} would do the job too, but it is certainly not true that nobody has hitherto supposed ZAhO+NAI useful. > 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 I think everyone would support the idea of avoiding frivolous changes to official documentation, but you have to realize that you have a highly eccentric notion of frivolity. Stuff you consider frivolous, other people consider to be entirely serious. (Or as serious as anything in Lojban is; you might argue that the entire enterprise is one great frivolity.) The general thrust of the pro CAhA+NAI camp is that the unofficial rule "NAI has the distribution of UI" is what many people have internalized, through naturalistic inductive methods of learning the grammar. The argument is therefore that the unofficial rule has proved itself to be more natural, and since it is harmless and has the added virtue of simplifying the grammar a little, it is a candidate for being officially formalized. If it were put to a vote, I don't know whether the conservatives or reformers would prevail. I suppose it would depend on whether nonactivists could be bothered to vote, since I have the impression that they tend to be conservatives, while most activists are moderate reformers. Anyway, if the conservatives won, I wonder how many "ka'enai" users would stop using it. Not many, I suspect. Maybe Nick, depending on his mood on a given day. So you're likely to end up with a baseline that is followed only in those aspects that command intrinsic respect. --And.