Jorge's X1-X6 (was: lojban zasni)

la stivn. cusku di'e

> Jorge's X1 - X5 proposals were rejected outright, when it appears
> to me that at least two of them had some merit. (The others may also have
> merit, but I don't understand the issues) I am suggesting that such
> proposals be considered for inclusion in the baseline. If the changes are
> too hard, or if there is fear of uncertain consequences, defer them till a
> later version of the language. Don't reject possibly meritorious proposals
> altogether. You are confusing your roles of book editor and lojban
> community leader.

I must correct some errors of fact here.  Of Jorge's six formalized
proposals, X1-X6, the disposition was:

X1 (tag+BO): rejected, but a workaround provided in the form of a new
JOI, so that "ju'e+tag+BO" would be legal in the sense of proposed "tag+BO".

X2 (gi+JOIK): rejected on the grounds that "gi" in an afterthought
construction was counterintuitive.  I requested new syntax, but no one
has proposed any.

X3 (jek legal wherever joik is): rejected because insufficiently justified.

X4 (merger of bridi and bridi-tail forethought): in the pipeline as change 40.

X5 (joiks in sumti only): rejected as eliminating existing  grammarical
sentences.

X6 (loosening of rules for tenses): had problems as written, but a revised

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.