From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Dec 06 14:51:32 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Dec 2002 22:51:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 82778 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 22:51:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2002 22:51:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 22:51:31 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18KRJj-0003b3-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:51:31 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KRJc-0003ai-00; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:51:24 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:51:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KRJW-0003aS-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:51:18 -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 gB6MvWG9091234 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:57:32 -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 gB6MvWvA091233 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:57:32 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:57:32 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: More stuff Message-ID: <20021206225732.GB90005@allusion.net> References: <12A8B59C-0868-11D7-9FC7-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> <20021206205731.GM28980@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aM3YZ0Iwxop3KEKx" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021206205731.GM28980@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 3167 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 --aM3YZ0Iwxop3KEKx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 12:57:31PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 02:41:51AM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote: [...] > > 2. ka'enai > >=20 > > My current position on ka'enai: we should not change it, because that = =20 > > exceeds our mandate, as it would cause a major grammar change.=20 >=20 > I debate 'major'. Having just checked the grammar, I'd suggest that > allowing NAI after CAhA is closer to 'trivial' then 'major'. >=20 > This doesn't necessarily change anything, but it's a point I wanted to > make. It's also an additive-only change. [...] Adding NAI after CAhA *is* trivial. However, most of the proponents of ka'e+nai would rather move nai to selma'o UI and destroy selma'o NAI, which is a *huge* (massive, barda, gigantic, rotsu, etc) grammar change. --=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 --aM3YZ0Iwxop3KEKx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE98StcDrrilS51AZ8RAm4HAJ9lnYYG1m53in3X3NEu6FjGuGfoRwCZAVXF kcKD9VnbClHUJLkGtDkA91c= =VQlO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --aM3YZ0Iwxop3KEKx--