From jkominek@miranda.org Tue Oct 16 08:15:34 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:15:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from miranda.org ([216.93.242.2]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Iho8q-0003js-Oh for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:15:34 -0700 Received: (qmail 20269 invoked by uid 534); 16 Oct 2007 09:15:30 -0600 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:15:30 -0600 From: Jay F Kominek To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: The Most Common Word In The Language Message-ID: <20071016151530.GW22996@miranda.org> References: <20071016130859.GX1196@nvg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 417 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jkominek@miranda.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:03:14AM -0400, Matt Arnold wrote: > On 10/16/07, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 08:49:18AM -0400, Matt Arnold wrote: > > > You have heard the argument that the BPFK needs to consider every > > > change all at once, as a group, so that they can say "you can have > > > your way in this part of the language if I can have my way in that > > > part of the language". > > > > Where did you get the idea that the BPFK works like that? > > From Lojbab's passage to which I was directly responding. I may have > misinterpreted it. I will paste it below > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:24:16PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > > 3) It is the pressure to get that consensus agreement, and the tradeoffs > > that people need to make to reach that point, that make consensus > > building possible. By removing issues from the table by membership fiat, > > consensus building becomes harder. There are technical and design trade offs to be made. A change in one part of the language can close off possible changes in another part, as the language is supposed to be a cohesive whole. Locking yourself in in one place prevents other choices, which you may decide are more important when you come to them. Whether Bob meant design trade offs, or political favor trading doesn't really matter. The design trade offs do certainly exist. -- Jay Kominek