From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Sat Oct 13 16:53:27 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IgqnP-0004j4-4G for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:53:27 -0700 Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:53:27 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business Message-ID: <20071013235327.GR31644@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-members@lojban.org References: <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> <471099AA.4070805@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <471099AA.4070805@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) X-archive-position: 407 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 Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 11:10:50AM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > 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? I, on the other hand, think it's a very bad idea. The current definitions for most of the cmavo are atrocious. -Robin -- Lojban Reason #17: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/