Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 35.164.127.234 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=35.164.127.234;
Subject: Re: [bpfk] Officially updating "Complete Lojban Language" grammar
 book. An official LLG proposal passed. Your help needed.
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
References: <391988c7-80ac-45c1-9549-8c22ebf6a113@googlegroups.com>
 <20190807173307.GL11404@nvg.org>
 <CAO7tK2dgTTYOqgK0gicW6D7SScsaT4JEc3Z8LAef89HK66c7LA@mail.gmail.com>
 <7062992b-d2f3-ef76-7081-d1ca919b04c2@lojban.org>
 <CAO7bV+jreaEKA+rkG=+4O_Osv+2u8qmYV4q=SkMnSS=4fJR-ow@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Message-ID: <99b607e0-27c6-7f13-8a32-1b498e18c0e6@lojban.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 08:57:34 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+jreaEKA+rkG=+4O_Osv+2u8qmYV4q=SkMnSS=4fJR-ow@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -3.0
X-Spam_score_int: -29
X-Spam_bar: ---

On 8/14/2019 8:12 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
>=20
>=20
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 15:08 Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org=20
> <mailto:lojbab@lojban.org>> wrote:
>=20
>     On 8/7/2019 6:31 PM, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas wrote:
>      >
>      >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0It is suggested to replace:
>      >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0It is illegal to add a hyphen at =
a place that is not
>     required by
>      >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0this
>      >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0algorithm.
>      >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0with:
>      >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0It is possible to optionally add =
an y-hyphen between the
>      >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0consonants of any
>      >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0permissible consonant pair e.g. f=
or stylistic purposes or for
>      >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the ease of
>      >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0pronunciation.
>      >
>      >
>      > I don't have the full context, but I assume the "y" would be
>     permitted
>      > betwen the consonants of adjacent rafsi, and not between the
>     consonants
>      > of any consonant pair at all, otherwise the morphology gets
>     broken ("to
>      > smabru" cannot be pronounced "to symabru" for example).
>=20
>=20
>     My opinion, for what it is worth (I don't have a veto), is that if th=
is
>     is an actual change to the morphology as it was defined fora couple o=
f
>     decades, then the fact that Jorge has to raise such questions means
>     that
>     the proposal was not specified completely enough to be properly
>     debated,
>     much less decided.
>=20
>     Especially knowing that Jorge could read any recorded
>     discussion/proposal in Lojban, unlike many of the rest of us (includi=
ng
>     Nora who did much of the later work and explication of morphology
>     issues).
>=20
>     I also don't recall any mention of this as a proposal approved by byf=
y,
>     and reported to the members or the Board by the byfy jatna
>=20
>     This proposal should not be incorporated into CLL without a proper
>     documentation, discussion and decision.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> What entity should discuss it?

In the absence of a byfy or equivalent/replacement, there is no entity=20
other than the Board (or members during a meeting) that can or should=20
approve ANY change to the language.  That was the state before byfy, and=20
again is the state until it is replaced.

But if course, if I am correct that it wasn't properly discussed, then=20
it can and should wait for an organization to be properly constituted (I=20
won't pretend to understand the convoluted mess that passed during the=20
meeting, but I had the impression that said approved proposal would in=20
face require formally documented proposals before they are decided).

Certainly this proposal is NOT merely the correction of an error in the=20
original CLL, and if not formally approved.  My understanding is that=20
the update to CLL is not supposed to be changing anything that wasn't=20
part of the original language (and erroneously described) or some=20
language change proposal that was approved by byfy before it was=20
disconstituted.

Remember that I personally don't support language changes *in general*=20
unless they are fixing something broken, though I can only control my=20
own vote, such as it is.

lojbab

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bpfk-list/99b607e0-27c6-7f13-8a32-1b498e18c0e6%40lojban.org.