WikiDiscuss

On 5/17/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> (although it is not clear how you can tell that
> the forms don't have interesting new meanings if
> the basic meanings they are to have are not yet
> — or are only just now — decided; perhaps the
> meaning that they have actually been used to have
> are significant variations on the programmatic
> ones, had those been specified before).

Huh? The programmatic meanings have for the most part
been in place for more than ten years, they are not being
decided now.

> On the
> other hand, if people do use {ti'u} instead of
> {ca}, then in Lojban as she are spoke it means
> that; that is what dictionary writing is all
> about.

But that is not what the BPFK is about. We are
defining prescriptively, not recording the mostly
erroneous use of Lojban by non-fluent speakers
which will for the most part readily admit that their
usage is erroneous when the mistake is pointed out.

> The history of success
> in that endeavor is not encouraging to be sure
> (Gresham's Law); I have given up on
> "disinterested," for example (even the New York
> Times uses it for "lacks interest") — though I
> don't (I think) use it myself.

dictionary.com has a note on that:
"... Oddly enough, "not interested" is the oldest sense
of the word, going back to the 17th century. This sense
became outmoded in the 18th century but underwent a
revival in the first quarter of the early 20th. Despite its
resuscitation, this usage is widely considered an error."

> But in the cases where the
> usage actually fills a need — and the offical
> line does not — then the editor and the
> dictionary writer would be wisest to follow
> usage. The exceptions, like {du'o} and {ri'a
> nai}, actually existed, apparently, before the
> (perhaps implicit) rules but surely no one (well,
> you in fact have, so I'd better not say this)
> would go back to change them now.

I wouldn't have a problem with defining {du'o} as {fi'o jinvi}.
I do have some problem with defining it as {fi'o djuno} and
keywording it as "according to".

{ri'a nai} is a separate issue, using {nai} to mark duals,
which is not its usual function. I just prefer regularity there.

> > Using BAIs for
> > non-BAI functions,
> > (like the sometime proposed function for
> > pa'aku) is not, in
> > my view, a desirable outcome.
>
> I don't remember this case; could you elaborate.

This is what the ma'oste has:

pa'aku BAI* each respectively
sumti: explicitly marks respective use as in
"THEY read THEIR (respective) books".

> > > It
> > > does not seem to me appropriate for the
> > grammar
> > > to take sides on this, hence my suggestion
> > that
> > > the unused forms be declared undetermine but
> > als
> > > show which way the predictions of their use
> > lie.
> >
> > It's hard to see how that differs from what is
> > being done
> > now.
>
> Well, you may take the definitions and examples
> offered as mere suggestions and hints, but I fear
> that most people take them as carved in at least
> something more enduring than Jell-o, to the
> detriment of creativity in this area.

What kind of creativity? How can an example preclude
semantic extension? I hope the examples preclude
the {pa'aku} type of creativity, I don't see how they can
preclude purely semantic extension.

mu'o mi'e xorxes