From ragnarok@pobox.com Fri Apr 18 16:11:07 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_5); 18 Apr 2003 23:11:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 45484 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2003 23:11:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Apr 2003 23:11:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Apr 2003 23:11:06 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 196f0b-0002Ln-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:11:05 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 196f0U-0002LR-00; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:10:58 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:10:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 196f0M-0002LE-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:10:50 -0700 Received: from craig [209.42.200.60] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id A5E054B0234; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 19:10:24 -0400 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Y+NAI is not grammatical; jbofi'e is not always right (was Re: ynai) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 19:10:20 -0400 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: <20030418225938.GA6836@allusion.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.60] X-archive-position: 4851 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ragnarok@pobox.com Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "Craig" Reply-To: ragnarok@pobox.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >I didn't even realize BPFK stuff was going on (that's what I get >for not paying attention I guess). I actually find it rather irritating that I am the only one pushing for the BPFK to act. We are letting the community down with our lethargy. >No offense, but it makes me a tad nervous that you are being called >the "shepherd" of nai (whatever that means), insomuch as you have >been unabashedly in favor of the abomination "ka'enai". I freely admit to being "unabashedly in favor of" ka'enai. I also promise not to do anything underhanded to make it official. As Shepherd, it is my job to encourage reasonable debate on any issues. This includes ka'enai, which usage has accepted but the current baseline has not. It is absolutely not my job to force my view onto the new baseline. If ka'enai is voted down, then ka'enai is voted down. Your nervousness is understandable, though IMHO misplaced, and I do not take any offense. However, I do hope for somewhat more sophisticated discussion of it than simply calling it an abomination; if you oppose my first proposal (which will be to officialize the purely descriptive record I have posted) then I hope you will say why there should be no ka'enai. >Quick looking at the forum you just mentioned proves my nervousness >well-founded: Your nervousness would be well-founded if I, as Shepherd, had either the power or the desire to force ka'enai into Lojban. I hope that it will be discussed in a mature fashion, and as a much lower priority I hope that it will be accepted. But if it is, it will be because that is what the BPFK votes on, not what I push in. Also, note that what I have posted so far is purely descriptive, and it is undeniable that ka'enai has been used quite a lot. I was hesitant to put it into my record - I wanted to urge adding it, sure, but I wasn't going to let that bias creep in to a descriptive document - until I found it in Alice and Le Petite Prince, which are generally seen as well-done translation projects which the whole community had a chance to see as they were in progress and cry "Foul!" at all the ka'enais. The community accepted the ka'enais. Besides, my first proposal, where I will indeed include adding ka'enai to the grammar, also includes removing joinai, which has never been used anywhere that I can find. The descriptive record has not been tweaked to reflect my view; my view happens to fit with that aspect of rather a lot of usage.