[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
It would be nice to settle this issue. Treating CAI as generalized
intensity seems intrinsically the better option, but I think we should
go against quasi-official pronouncements only when they are either
plain wrong (I can't think of examples, but some have cropped up
-- some CLL examples of {jei} = "whether", say?) or when they are
just an Incredibly Bad Idea (e.g. the ku-less na scoping issue).
I haven't checked back what CLL says about CAI yet, but shouldn't
there be some minimum rationale for restricting it to emotions?
Does that rule out things like {la'acai} for "extremely likely"
too?
I joined Lojban list in 1991, and design issues were hardly ever discussed, and when they were, they were initiated by the rank and file and generally deprecated by Lojban Central. The list itself dates back only to 1989, so it seems unlikely that all issues were thrashed out in the two years before I joined. So was it the case that they were not actually ever thrashed out?
That's my impression too, I joined in 1994. I would hazard that many things went like this: Some issue came up which was not obvious how to solve, so lojbab asked pc about it. Then pc gave lojbab a most likely correct but hard to decipher answer. Lojbab interpreted, and then John Cowan tried to make whatever sense could be rescued out of that interpretation. Somewhat like the Broken Phone game. The results are still pretty impressive, which shows the high quality of participants and the Loglan starting point, in spite of the method. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com