[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John: > And Rosta scripsit: > > > As an aside, John says that the Incredibly Bad Idea about the scope > > of ku-less na was down to Lojbab's prescription. But how did we let > > this happen? > > When I joined the Project in 1989 (just about when the list began), > the grammar of NA was as it is today. When writing what became the > negation chapter of CLL, I asked Lojbab how and why the grammar changed > from Loglan's initial "no" (non-initial "no" typically meant "na'e", as > the na/na'e distinction does not exist in Loglan, but sometimes "na bo"). > He replied that it had been changed for greater naturalism. > > This does not exactly pinpoint whodunit: it might have been any of the > following: Lojbab, Nora, Jeff Taylor (YACC author), or possibly another > of the very early Lojbanists. > > Since nobody protested, nothing got changed. So there never was a time when Lojban Central said "Here is the design, we invite your comments on it"? That happened with Woldy, but it was the text that was reviewed, rather than the design it described. (Incidentally, given that several of us here reviewed the book, I'm a bit shocked that we didn't pick up on more of the inconsistencies in it. When people complain about muddled sections, they ought to be blaming me.) --And.