From matt.mattarn@gmail.com Mon Aug 07 15:00:28 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GAD94-0007UU-HU for llg-members@lojban.org; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:00:23 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id s2so259383uge for ; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:00:20 -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=hu1iRd3s8tg0Exwe7brJXpf/jbXXAYbrvfAnervYeiOksYOfJlUp90ZMryeDcfYvsqnvaIO/vKQ/3CKXiaAQJzgUX/sobLA0Et+3NKxCRaA9y+mHxzjW66GAR7nrCosS1+bWDUjJgW01vNCuqhBjSCnbZMbRI1heigAgzSdMTD4= Received: by 10.78.165.13 with SMTP id n13mr2553040hue; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.159.4 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 18:00:20 -0400 From: "Matt Arnold" To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG 2006 Annual Meeting Thread In-Reply-To: <55b258c20608071436p22055330v3efd2c539fba07d5@mail.gmail.com> 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> <55b258c20608071436p22055330v3efd2c539fba07d5@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) X-archive-position: 246 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members On 8/7/06, Craig Daniel wrote: > 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.) > Point of fact? Jbovlaste is *not*, in fact, actually growing all that much lately, is it? If not, is it because BPFK needs to be finished first? Is there a connection there? -epkat