Subject: [lojban] Re: More stuff

From: Jordan DeLong <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:57:32 -0600

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
> > 
> > My current position on ka'enai: we should not change it, because that  
> > exceeds our mandate, as it would cause a major grammar change. 
> 
> I debate 'major'. Having just checked the grammar, I'd suggest that
> allowing NAI after CAhA is closer to 'trivial' then 'major'.
> 
> 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.

-- 
Jordan DeLong - [email-masked]
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku