Proposal 1

[Randall Holmes]

Re proposal 1 and 1b, I want to make this statement on the Keugru list for the record.

Peter Hill has done some research at my request which appears to verify a suspicion of mine. 

I think that my Proposal 1 was the actual intent of the 1994 ruling.  It appears that the dictionary is in exact compliance withProposal 1 (all the work was done), which suggests to me that the authors of that ruling simply didnt realize that they

had introduced CCVV borrowings and so forced hyphenation of many CVCCVV words (and also CVCCCV words, if you read the 94 ruling literally; I didnt mention this in my proposal and attach corrected language).

On the other hand, there are actually several slinkuis in the dictionary, which can remain under Proposal 1 and would otherwise have to be revised.  They were not introduced since 1994; they seem to be errors made by JCB.

The actual meaning of Proposal 1 is this:

All CVC affixes in initial position in complexes of forms other than CVCCVV [and CVCCCV] must be followed by a y-hyphen;

the slinkui test is abandoned; CCVV borrowings continue to be forbidden.

The dictionary is apparently in full compliance.

--
Sincerely, Randall Holmes

Any opinions expressed above are not the
official opinions of any person or institution.

[Randall Holmes]

slight revision of the proposal list (CVCCCV included in statement of proposal 1).

[Randall Holmes]

its so easy to say dim-witted things...

The actual meaning of Proposal 1 is this:

All CVC affixes in initial position in complexes of forms other than CVCCVV [and CVCCCV] must be followed by a y-hyphen

*if the CC joint formed is a permitted initial*;

the slinkui test is abandoned; CCVV borrowings continue to be forbidden.

The dictionary is apparently in full compliance.

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Randall Holmes <m.randal...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Randall Holmes]

I hope this isnt modified by the typo :-)

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Emerson Mitchell <emer...@aol.com> wrote:

I am convinced, my Keugru vote goes for Proposal 1 as reworded by Randall below:

Endless Loop: n., see Loop, Endless.
Loop, Endless: n., see Endless Loop.
-- Random Shack Data Processing Dictionary

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Keugru" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to keugru+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[selpa'i]

I think I'm okay with banning CCVV borrowings, but I would rather not
get rid of the slinkui test (nor tosmabru). I'm not sure if this means
I'm against proposal 1.

--hue la Selpahi

[John Cowan]

selpa'i scripsit:

> I think I'm okay with banning CCVV borrowings, but I would rather
> not get rid of the slinkui test (nor tosmabru). I'm not sure if this
> means I'm against proposal 1.

The slinkui test is already gone. 1b is the proposal to bring it back.

Nobody is proposing to change the tosmabru test.

--
John Cowan co...@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan
If a traveler were informed that such a man [as Lord John Russell] was
leader of the House of Commons, he may well begin to comprehend how the
Egyptians worshiped an insect. --Benjamin Disraeli