[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Speaking as a grammarian, the current debate about the 'grammar' of NAI strikes me as a waste of effort. A grammar of a language defines a mapping between sound and meaning. The so-called 'grammar' of Lojban does not do that; it is a pseudogrammar (& afaik has never claimed to be otherwise). So one day, someone is going to have to take all the meaningful sentences of Lojban and work out a true grammar. Until then, the only significance of the pseudogrammar is whether it rules some otherwise-meaningful strings of Lojban words (e.g. "ka'e nai") as non-Lojban. It strikes me as silly to rule out a potentially meaningul string just because the pseudogrammar prohibits it, given that the pseudogrammar has no motivation or function other than the pointless one of labelling strings of Lojban words either as Lojban or non-Lojban. But that is not to say that "ka'e nai" should necessarily be accepted: it would be perfectly sensible to argue about whether a grammar that allows "ka'e nai" is more or less economical and learnable than one that doesn't, if only we actually had a grammar to base such arguments on. I would suggest that we simply ignore the pseudogrammar, both in usage and in the BF. There's no point making changes to it, because it does not actually play any role in defining the language, except to the extent that people allow their usage to be affected by its prescriptions. And the more fool they who do allow their usage to be affected in so arbitrary a way. --And.