[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la lojbab cusku di'e
> You should brought this up 5 years ago (when indeed you were the primary
> commentator on the pre-baselined CLL chapters, and the tense stuff was one
> of the first chapters available). If you did, and did not convince then,
> I'm not likely to be convinced now.
I did comment then, and I managed to convince John of allowing {space time}
alongside {time space} which was the only one allowed before, among
a few other minor details. But even back then everything was effectively
frozen and the least change no matter how obviously advantageous required
an inordinate amount of arguing. I am not arguing now with any expectation
that anything will be done. I only argue against pseudo-reasons to
justify ad hoc restrictions. The true reason, as you admit, is that
that's how it was defined and that's that. And I'm sure the historical
development of how things came to be what they are has a lot to do
with the relative chaos, but unfortunately that doesn't make it any
less chaotic, that's the origin of irregularities in natlangs too.
> > > Like I was saying though; I think the burden is on the positive
> > > claim that it should be allowed. "There's not reason not to" doesn't
> > > count as a reason for it.
> >
> >To me, there can't be a better reason than that.
>
> For a baselined language, that is not a reason.
Ok.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com