From and.rosta@gmail.com Sun Oct 14 09:04:17 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:04:17 -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 1Ih5ws-0006cs-Hb for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:04:16 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so817638uge for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:04:12 -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=LhK7kknZgodcPpyVerycJqal3QfZPVzovk5HBagew48=; b=Oo0BkSHXeduXQy8iZbEBxPhBaUwGdhvC+1AqdiRRTTk/+eIFn48FrbA43udBG+wnc+8srH4/mGwfX7sb4JB0BDm5Z7QpvupG2lWRE24j8wiiTCww4C2CjzTOWeI0O/VxLuDzPqkr9HNWykgW7qdbTVDR9HsXcJSgpB+poQBwB7M= 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=azSYwqoikRcnY2cP6ZNNmZ1yFJ9B0V9hl+VxqisU5NvEAxSejLFFrhOPbcjrKH2q0VtZijOUvvwnlCBGYFcSP8cQHB8j35pzDpcOHZsjMT6k6ghyCj7T9AKu1H7yUudYbQpEkgjgDJeTuPcpGhbR7V5JIyEgGuZW2gA9j5T2WzU= Received: by 10.67.116.4 with SMTP id t4mr6834388ugm.1192377852635; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:04:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.68? ( [87.194.76.9]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o1sm2383038uge.2007.10.14.09.04.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:04:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <47123DF7.9070802@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:04:07 +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: <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> <20071013235327.GR31644@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20071013235327.GR31644@digitalkingdom.org> 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: 411 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 Robin Lee Powell, On 14/10/2007 00:53: > 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. Everybody's unwillingness to improve the documentation on certain cmavo is arguably indicative of a lack of will for those cmavo to remain in the language. I.e. if nobody's willing to bother documenting a cmavo, then arguably, nobody feels strongly that it should be part of the language. Seriously, about the only way to ensure that the BPFK completes is to have some sort of principle that abolishes those bits of the language that none of the BPFK could be arsed to document. --And.