[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: [jboske] putative tense scope effects (was: RE:ConcreteexamplesofLlambanlo'e



xod:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, And Rosta wrote:
> 
> > plain le = ro da poi cmima le'i
> 
> How sure are you of this?

completely

> > > Where does the book say that lo broda === da poi broda, that is, that
> > lo
> > > broda should be treated like it introduces a prenex variable? I would
> > like
> > > to hear John Cowan's views on this topic
> >
> > i Don't know, but CLL is a reference grammar, to a large extent
> > didactic in function, and does not necessarily set down in print
> > all the lore accumulated on lojban list over the years 
> 
> On the other hand, that apocryphal corpus can be legally ignored 

It can, but to no useful purpose. It's mere demolition of knowledge. 
It takes us back to square one -- it leaves is with no understanding 
rather than an altered understanding. 

An important element of the constitution of jboske is that it has no
legal status; it is established by a combination of Reason and
Consensus founded on Reason. A rejection of jboske is a rejection
not of authority but of reason. This is not at all to say that jboske
is carved in stone; it is very welcome when someone comes along and
rationally challenges orthodoxies.

--And.