[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
If we do throw that issue open too, we'll have to reevaluate every single gadri at once. Come on, that's not humanly feasible.
If it is true that Groups are what we want to talk about, and loi doesn't do groups, we have two alternatives: change loi so it does talk about Groups; or admit that loi-masses are not groups, and maybe come up with a different way to talk about groups.
Because this is not Lojban Mark II, and the BPFK has a mandate to expand on the current baseline, not to annul it, I cannot countenance the first alternative. So you can say in Lojban {la .ioko'onos. co'a speni loi prenrbitlzi}, but you cannot say in English "Yoko Ono married the Beatles"? To me, that doesn't mean {loi} is broken. It means the English doesn't correspond to the Lojban. Cheap essentialism, perhaps, but one has to draw the fundamentalist line in the sand some time.
Somewhere somehow, I'll have to tune in to Jordan's discussion with you, because I take it {jaika} is being discussed there, and I have a vested interest in it. But this is getting too much. We've got {kau} and {lo'e} open; *please* let's not open Group =? {loi} up as well.
-- **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** * Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian Studies nickn@hidden.email * University of Melbourne, Australia http://www.opoudjis.net * "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the * circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson, * _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. * **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****