From xod@thestonecutters.net Mon Apr 28 14:26:00 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 28 Apr 2003 21:26:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 10077 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2003 21:26:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Apr 2003 21:26:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Apr 2003 21:26:00 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19AG8N-0003Im-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:25:59 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19AG8C-0003I3-00; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:25:48 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19AG7r-0003FT-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:25:27 -0700 Received: from granite.thestonecutters.net (localhost.thestonecutters.net [127.0.0.1]) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.12.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3SLPcAN042609 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:25:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with ESMTP id h3SLPcTa042606 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:25:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) X-Authentication-Warning: granite.thestonecutters.net: xod owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:25:38 -0400 (EDT) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: nai in UI (was: BPFK phpbb) In-Reply-To: <20030428205116.GH22216@digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: <20030428171103.K32091-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 4991 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Invent Yourself Reply-To: xod@thestonecutters.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple 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.