Re: Cleaning up a mess: modal constraints

[Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>]

John Cowan stood up, stood up some more, and spoke thus:

*scowl* A not unmajor alteration proposed here, John; moreover, an *alteration*
of entrenched usage, not a welcome disambiguating addition, like the empathy
attitudinal. (And of course, while you're at it, be sure you investigate
other changes floating about --- Colin's accuracy VUhU, my unclefting xe'e,
and top priority (if not already implemented): making functions arguments
of other functions in MEX.)

In fact, I'm going to say something possibly a tad excessive, possibly
misguided, probably a result of ill humour, but I'll say it anyway: In the
first half of 1992, we had a living, stable language in our community.
Right now, we do not. The changes, and radical changes at that --- that to
rafsi, in particular, even if still not implemented, have guaranteed that.

So what is my reaction to this latest? I shrug. The damage is done. Our
language is back on the drawing board. So let's get the work over and done
with, patch up what there is to be patched, and get on with our work.

(It occurs to me, btw, that the x4 place of {traji} *should* be an x2,
to match the pattern of {zmadu}, and, I'll admit, for dikyjvo convenience:
{mi xagrai loi remna} sounds more sensible than {mi xagrai fo loi remnai}
for "I am best of all humans" (cf. the obvious {mi xagmau loi remna}). *shrug*
Do with that suggestion as you will...)

Although I would prefer we ignore talk of a VSO Lojban... even if not
proposed seriously. Such talk just carries things too far.)

I'm not 100% convinced by John's explocation... well, let me explain:

sure, {mi ne pu la djan. klama da} and {mi *mo'u pu la djan. klama da}
aren't necessarily identical; in the former, {ne pu la djan.} can be dropped;
in the latter, the "deepstructure" is {lenu mi klama da cu purci lenu la
djan. klama da}; but... well, the status quo *is* expressive, especially
in such cases as {ti xunre *mo'u semau narju} ({ti xunre gi'esemaubo narju})
and {mi pu *mo'u semau ca nelci}... well, ok, the current paraphrase is
awkward.

In any case, I hesitantly approve this change, on the condition that John
*abundantly* illustrate significant *mo'u-ne distinctions, particularly
with BAI words other than {mau} and {me'a}.

I'm not as opposed as Lojbab to {ne'e}; I agree {dai} doesn't seem essential;
and the best proposal is to make {nau} the new *mo'u, and {dai} the
empathy attitudinal.

"Kai` sa`n swqh~kan t'akriba` piota`,           N N O  nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au
 kai` sa`n plhsi'aze pia` [h [w'ra te'sseres,   I I L  IRC:nicxjo RL:shaddupnic
 sto`n e'rwta doqh~kan eutuxei~s."              C C A  University of Melbourne.
  K.P.Kaba'fhs, _Du'o Ne'oi, 23 E'ws 24 Etw~n_  K H S  *Ceci n'est pas un .sig*