From craigbdaniel@gmail.com Mon Aug 07 14:36:32 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:56:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GAClw-0006pe-1H for llg-members@lojban.org; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:36:29 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id s2so251751uge for ; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:36:26 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=L+vuaA4CtIAIa/y/nih8tqQ3WES7xXhniRvtAaMDhW6WqOWFhLrhwvVYs77Y0CDc5ciayHJjgHpVngS1J1O2mom8Y5aIufEFMhpGZhyUvU/G6zbnVLo3Ck/VaUVZrQ1DWIMXXQnaQsdM5kXrFPMrYUTlJsq5dlmm7zpWeeZzfCw= Received: by 10.66.224.3 with SMTP id w3mr8701071ugg; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:36:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.255.18 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 14:36:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55b258c20608071436p22055330v3efd2c539fba07d5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 16:36:21 -0500 From: "Craig Daniel" To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG 2006 Annual Meeting Thread In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060707224943.GB18983@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20060807041126.GE28190@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <44D6D0E3.30801@lojban.org> <55b258c20608070650h49460f55j94594cfa5e5ac0e6@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-archive-position: 245 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: craigbdaniel@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members On 8/7/06, Matt Arnold wrote: > On 8/7/06, Craig Daniel wrote: > > What distinguishes this proposed dictionary from Jbovlaste? > > > > Technically, jbovlaste is not quite official. (Someone correct me if > I'm wrong.) We don't stand on formalities, so we treat it as official > anyway; but it would be nice to get a PDF such as the one it generates > and give it official imprimatur. That's basically what I was picturing when lojbab raised this point. I was just wanting to make sure there wasn't anything people were looking for beyond that. (Unless anything else is expected I see no reason not to do said officializing in this meeting, with the understanding that this will be renewed each year as jbovlaste grows to keep the official dictionary up-to-date.)