From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Tue Aug 08 16:27:21 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:27:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GAayl-0004w5-Dl for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:27:19 -0700 Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:27:19 -0700 To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG 2006 Annual Meeting Thread Message-ID: <20060808232719.GA28190@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-members@lojban.org References: <20060707224943.GB18983@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20060807041126.GE28190@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <44D6D0E3.30801@lojban.org> <55b258c20608070650h49460f55j94594cfa5e5ac0e6@mail.gmail.com> <55b258c20608071436p22055330v3efd2c539fba07d5@mail.gmail.com> <44D8D339.6000201@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44D8D339.6000201@lojban.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 254 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 02:08:57PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > 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, > > We could "officialize" it, but technically it is the job of byfy > to do the "certifying" something as official language materials > per its charter. Exactly. The BPFK jatna says no dictionary at this time. The BPFK membership is, as usual, welcome to ask for a vote. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/