From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Dec 02 19:34:59 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 3 Dec 2002 03:34:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 59263 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2002 03:34:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2002 03:34:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2002 03:34:54 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18J3pm-00050e-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:34:54 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18J3pi-00050N-00; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:34:50 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:34:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18J3pd-00050C-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:34:45 -0800 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.67] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A63677A008E; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 22:34:14 -0500 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: ka'enai (was: Re: A question on the new baseline policy) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 22:34:13 -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) In-Reply-To: <20021203015918.GA43563@allusion.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: raganok@intrex.net [209.42.200.67] X-Note: Total weight is 0. Whitelisted X-archive-position: 2942 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 >I agree---if a change is made to allow ka'enai, it would have to >be the general change to move nai to UI. However, I think that >that is a bad idea (nai means different things in different contexts, >etc). Also, the BF probably doesn't have the authority to do it: >the doc says specifically that it cannot create new selma'o, so I >would imagine it is not allowed to delete them either (deleting NAI >is a *huge* change to the grammar). Obviously, I would also strongly >object to moving the cmavo and leaving the grammar with the rules >for NAI (which would then contain no cmavo) in tact. I agree with all but the first sentence of that - vanishing NAI would be a Bad Thing. However, we could allow the cluster CAhA NAI without moving nai to UI. >> Xod told me the other day that you're 17(!) As I said to xod, I >> shall admire you for your intellect that is utterly not that of >> the typical 17 year old, and try not to get irate at you for >> having the social graces of the typical 17 year old. Because of >> the discrepancy, though, it's easy to forget that I shouldn't >> expect the quality of your manners to be commensurate with the >> high quality of your ideas. >Actually I'm 19 (was 18 when first starting out on lojban IRC, so >he may have been remembering that...). Hey, age has nothing to do with it. You just have to be careful, regardless of your age. Adults can also mess up; the rest of us can also not. >> > > 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 >> > >> > This "unofficial rule" is simply an error. NAI is not a UI. It >> > is not a CAI either. I *highly* doubt the BF even has the authority >> > to change a cmavo to a different selma'o, so if they were to accept >> > ka'enai it would likely be done by hacking the tense grammar to >> > allow NAI after CAhA, and not by changing NAI to UI >> >> Do you understand that I am trying to explain to how how the opposing >> side sees things? The actual debate should go to the BF. I was just >> trying to point out to you that everybody else isn't as stupid as >> you think they are. >I never claimed anyone was stupid, you're putting words into my >mouth. If people get the idea that NAI is UI, it's because they >learned wrong. I don't know about the rest of the prokahenaists, but I have never said nai should be a UI. It is different from UI; it just ought to be a little more UIlike than it is. >But seriously: nai means completely different things on different >words, and I think the grammar should clearly reflect that (and >currently it does). NAI should probably not have been allowed on >FAhA or PU, and Cowan has said it was done to preserve backward >compat with what people were used to. Changing it to selma'o UI >is a *massive* grammar change, which the BF probably doesn't even >have authority to do, and opens up a whole number of contexts which >need to be explained (what does ki+nai mean? what does co+nai >mean?). Nai shouldn't be a UI. On this, we agree. How it behaves on FAhA and PU are irrelevant, at least to me - I don't even think of CAhA as a tense, though I suppose it technically is. Lack of ka'enai is bad, whether or not punai is equally bad.