Re:On declaring a set of cmavo "deprecated"
> arj:
> Rob, please take this in good faith. I am very happy with the thoroughness on your research, but I have to disagree with several on your conclusion, viz. the deprecation(sp?) of unused cmavo.
And I disagree with your disagreement.
> 1. There is no tradition in the Loglan project for declaring parts of the language as "deprecated". A construct is either permissible, or ungrammatical. The LLG should decide what is and what is not part of the language, but should not decide how people should use it.
Deprecation *IS* deciding "what is and is not part of the language". Furthermore, it is making that decision based, in this case, on total and complete lack of usage. I don't see a problem as long as (and this is key) there are other ways to acheive the same effect.
> 2. The non-usage of a construct is not a sufficient reason to change the status quo. I believe we have been through a similar discussion, either on the PHPBB or on Jboske.
Then please point me to it, because it seems perfectly sufficient to me, if there's another way to accomplish the same effect (as there is in this case, AFAIK).
-Robin