[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la nitcion cusku di'e
> Yet another crucial point. Jorgean revisionism wouldn't be laissez
> faire, I take it; Jorge thinks the prescription is wrong, and should be
> (or should have been) changed where it is wrong. Jorge, is that
> accurate?
Yes, I do want a formal grammar, but I don't see the point
of abiding by what I consider a wrong prescription. I value
stability but not to the exclusion of other aims.
I notice that my differences with Jordan in this respect are just
a matter of degree. He approves of changing the grammar a little so
that {ui y nai} becomes grammatical, but not so much that {ka'e nai}
becomes grammatical. I approve of both changes on the same grounds:
they both make sense and there is no reason for the grammar to
disallow them.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com