History: On Grunge and conflict resolution

Source of version: 4 (current)

((Michael Helsem|Michael)) suggested this be put on the Wiki. I'm not sure if this is exactly what he had in mind, but here it is.... ----- ~pp~ >>> Nick NICHOLAS <nicholas@uci.edu> 08/24/01 12:12am >>> >I've had a further think on lenu... soi vo'a, which xod brought up, and >I'm doing a backflip. [[...] >So I propose: >* vo'a is by default long-distance > >* when context overwhelmingly allows it, it can be short-distance instead [[...] >For the hardliners, as Jay and And have rightly pointed out, there's >always {lenei} and {leno'a}/{leno'axiro}. Speaking as a hardliner, I like this. Subscripted no'a panders to the hardliners and grungey vo'a panders to the naturalists. Could this suggest future ways of resolving hardliner vs naturalist debates? i.e. have alternate bits of grammar, one version of which panders to one constituency and the other version of which panders to the other constituency? --And. ~/pp~ ----- ~pp~ Rob: >On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 04:12:08PM -0700, Nick NICHOLAS wrote: >> I would prefer vo'a to be unambiguous in all cases; but usage has not, and >> will continue to not respect that, and it's better to at least encode >> these usage tendencies as conventions. Moreover, the fact that the cmavo .> list and the refgramm contradict each other means this is now up in the >> air; why not take account of usage in cleaning this up? > >I don't like this. vo'a was one of the pronouns for which it is possible to >absolutely tell what its referent is; there aren't many others. OTOH, doing what Nick proposes, and formalizing usage patterns into documented conventions, will serve as explicit and warning testimony to the fuckups that arise by leaving things to usage to decide. --And. ~/pp~ ----