From and.rosta@gmail.com Sat Oct 13 03:11:21 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Igdxj-00045Y-AC for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:11:21 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so730057uge for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:11:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=epxiI1bPWVkYPHbQQUB5ReoiBiSlxDybC22c3J8wDk8=; b=Tomt8z1aQ3Gjkwk0UnBloMZlVu+B1zzhnv9T1tLATJ4lLEQSAz4lmwIS8Ux5hn1HNsCttMZotUvRHXUfyLrLE5xNaGXniA91eZQL0AR+yx0v2Cj0ybe8jzGx/B3+AEqTPli3JIUJh2vUHZqYe0s7zV4KslFHU1a8kC8zS5+p4iM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Dc4Cvpr4jeHbyCH+eB/OKA/M/QoAlf8QgcSYUZNXaupg1mW8o2LqFl+fBjGo3XliXcF3I7Zb5gjjc8OcAVEQlFmRlL6QKbhhJXU5UuVRZK6/WyPaXizs4QOLo8CvJcleOEALDH9w/EcfeHE/BZh/GRy6A4dgjebO5IS/0ko1MWc= Received: by 10.66.219.16 with SMTP id r16mr5383655ugg.1192270265539; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.68? ( [87.194.76.9]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s7sm4065462uge.2007.10.13.03.11.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <471099AA.4070805@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:10:50 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business References: <20070918181955.GW10667@nvg.org> <20071010000942.GZ10376@digitalkingdom.org> <20071011190654.GO13890@digitalkingdom.org> <470E9480.3000307@lojban.org> <20071012022955.GG13890@digitalkingdom.org> <470F688A.2050209@lojban.org> <20071012172307.GD31644@digitalkingdom.org> <470FD7BB.2030202@lojban.org> <925d17560710121543u7022f8d2n56d06f14ac6f8e7d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <925d17560710121543u7022f8d2n56d06f14ac6f8e7d@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 403 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: and.rosta@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members Jorge Llambías, On 12/10/2007 23:43: > The problem is not the procedure. The problem is that nobody seems > very interested in working on the remaining sections, In my case, because > they are mostly uninteresting to me or because they contain cmavo that I > would rather see dropped from the laguage, and I'm not going to waste time > and effort trying to write good definition for them. > > Perhaps what we might do is decide that no new definition will be written > for any cmavo for which nobody cares to write a new definition, and no > examples of usage will be sought or created for them. Then the work on > cmavo will be basically over and we can move on to morphology and > formal grammar issues that I would like to see resolved. This seems very sensible. Would it be practicable to have a motion on this, rather than specifically on xorlo? --And.