Subject: [lojban] Re: nai in UI (was: BPFK phpbb)

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:25:38 -0400 (EDT)

yOn Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 04:36:25PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > As is "jai jai jai na'e jai je'a klesi jai cupra", which was
> > offered by a random sentence generator, and defended by Jay as
> > being grammatical, and yet now we're supposed to get our panties
> > twisted at the fear of "nai nai nai".
>
> This is *far* from the only issue.
>
> BPFK is consensus-minus-one. I count at *least* 3 people who won't
> even give this idea the time of day until a complete grammar change
> proposal is put forth.

> Either put up or shut up.

If you want to see what was proposed, then check the subject header of
this mail.

Questioning why nai can or can't go in certain places is a logical action
after realizing that usage has drifted away from the official grammar on
this very issue. This topic was inspired by Holy Usage, not pure abstract
tinkering. Therefore I don't accept your apparent dismissal of the
discussion as an outrageous threat to decency.

If "the prohibition of meaningless sentences" is one of our goals, we have
much work ahead of us. However, I think your goal is closer to "the
prohibition of meaningless sentences which are newly allowed by a grammar
change, and the toleration of meaningless sentences that are already
permitted", so I'm sure you'll understand me if I label that justification
somewhat arbitrary, and unhelpful, as it (arbitrarily) impedes a possible
solution to an existing problem.

-- 
In an opinion poll conducted in early March by Zogby, 97% of
Saudis said they had an unfavorable opinion of the US.

"I think that underestimates it," said Awardh Badhi, a political
scientist with the Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies.