Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism)

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

> >> >No. That's not how Lojban ka abstractions work.
> >>
> >> That is how I use them, and how they have been used since they started.
> >
> >It is helpful, I think, to distinguish between one's own usage and
> >what is prescribed. Likewise, it is helpful to distinguish between
> >usage history and what is prescribed. For example, usage history
> >contains a lot of sumti-raising, but this runs contrary to the
> >prescription.
> >
> >I was reporting the prescription.
>
> I'm sorry, but you will have to quote me chapter and verse if you want me
> to believe that the prescription says much of anything about this.
[snip]

Better that you should respond "quote me chapter and verse" than
"That is how I use them, and how they have been used since they
started".

Hopefully once I get the refgram it'll live on top of my computer
in my office, so then I can quote chapter & verse.

Anyway, as it happens I was slightly misreporting the prescription.
In recent postings John has made clear how ce`u is supposed to
work.

--And

p.s. How come you call John "Cowan"? Is that what he prefers?
(I *hate* being called "Rosta" (not that I ever am any more,
thank god): it sends me back to secondary school. I make an
exception when you call me that, though, because I know it's
just a machismoless peculiarity of your locutory habits.)