[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
cu'u la .and.
Still willing to compromise, though. For example: Give me a collective lu'oi, and you can keep your lojbanmass loi. That kind of thing
I wonder about that: how happy would people be if they never used "loi broda" and always used "lu'oi ro broda" instead. Would they not come to feel frustration? Or is that a Lojban Mark II issue? That is, the BF takes a basically fundamentalist line as far as possible, adding but not changing what already exists, and then after testing it through usage the community decides whether to undertake more drastic revisions?
The former. They keep their lojbanmass, and use {loi broda} a lot; they go to {lu'oi lo broda} only when they want to emphasise the collective reading. So you end up with a situation like English: a bare plural can mean both individuals and collectives ("the states rebelled"), and you can put in more words to disambiguate ("the states rebelled all together", "each state rebelled separately")
I know you want a Lojban Mark II. There may be a Lojban Mark II some time. The BPFK was not assembled to make Lojban Mark II, but Microsoft Lojban (as you put it.)
I know this, but you can't lambast me for breaching fundamentalist principles if you are prepared to breach them yourself, and I happen to strike a different balance between fundamentalism and revisionism that the one you strike.
We do have to both accept that there is a gradient between fundamentalism and revisionism. I'm not "no change"; you're not "all change". I think you are further along the revisionist axis than me.
Btw, I retract my attempt to shoehorn {remei} into collective. Obviously that won't work.
I note that And agrees with my 4 scenarios but for the use of {mei} (which I retract), if he accepts that {lei} is lojbanmass (which he normally doesn't). Ok, that's something one can work with; and I still hope beyond hope that a kludge can satisfy everyone.
If there's schism, well, so be it; that's not my intent. -- **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** * 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. * **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****