From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Tue Oct 16 13:21:11 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:21:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ihsud-0005kU-4o for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:21:11 -0700 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:21:11 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business Message-ID: <20071016202111.GK5630@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-members@lojban.org 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="NMuMz9nt05w80d4+" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <470F688A.2050209@lojban.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) X-archive-position: 432 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 --NMuMz9nt05w80d4+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 08:28:58AM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > Robin Lee Powell wrote: >> If you wish me to despair less, you must show me that this situation >> will be resolved in the forseeable future. Telling me that I'm >> missing the point of the BPFK is no good: I already know, and I'm >> very nearly past caring. Telling me you will confront me with >> legalities is no good: it simply increases my despair, because if >> legalities will be used to slow the process of something that is >> already this slow, we will literally never finish. >> Show me another way. Show me something other than the future I see >> before me, which is another 5 years of trying to respect the >> baseline in front of newbies when my own writings use xorlo. > [snip] > > The original intent, as I understood it, was that we were going to document > the baseline as is, and document a set of change proposals to that baseline > (I had envisioned when byfy was founded that these would be documented in > the manner that we came up with for baseline change proposals > http://www.lojban.org/publications/formal-grammars/techfix.300 > or some appropriate modification thereof. I will note that nearly all > grammar baseline change proposals that were written up in that way were > adopted without a helluva lot of contention. > [snip] > > If this had been done from the start, then a long time ago we should have > had, with almost no debate at all, a draft for every section, and a whole > bunch of questions, issues, and change proposals to be considered, all of > which would be decided upon as changes to the *complete* draft. My response to this mail was to spend the rest of the day trying not to cry, and seriously considering ceasing to care about Lojban. As the person who does most of the work around here, I want to make it clear why. It upset and scared me that one of the Founders is living in a fantasy universe where particular procedures make people actually do work that they aren't otherwise doing. This is so demonstrably false that I hardly know where to begin, but let me start with this: the procedures Bob describes are, almost word for word, the procedures that the BPFK was using when Nick was leading it. During that 2 years or so, as far as I can tell, basically nothing happened. They certainly didn't come *close* to documenting the status quo, as was their mandate. I've attached their procedural document to this mail, in case anyone cares. Sorry about the formatting. Further, I am deeply offended that someone who has done exactly zero BPFK documentation of the language, despite repeated promises to do so, insists that if we'd been doing everything *his* way, we'd magically be done "a long time ago". All this was done in response to me *begging* for a way to feel like the BPFK (and, by implication, Lojban) wasn't a total and complete waste of my time. I came asking for help/comfort, and got kicked in the balls. (would have been nice if anyone else had responded to my resquest, but whatever) While I'm not going to be leaving the Lojban community, I have very little interest in discussing these issues further, and even less in running the BPFK. Bob, you clearly believe you can do better running the BPFK than Nick or I. Have at; it's all yours. I'll be off actually using the language. -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/ --NMuMz9nt05w80d4+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="GuidelinesForUsing.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable %META:TOPICINFO{author=3D"NickNicholas" date=3D"1048776720" format=3D"1.0" = version=3D"1.6"}% %META:TOPICPARENT{name=3D"Administrative"}% You may also wish to look at [[BPFK Guidelines: Short Version]], by Main.Ro= binLeePowell. Although it is quite unofficial, it is much less frightening= =2E=0D =0D ---=0D =0D ---+ Procedure=0D =0D Based on the outlines given in [[http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/Mini-= dictionary][my manifesto on the wiki]] and [[http://www.lojban.org/llg/base= line.html][the board statement]], the procedure for defining a paradigm in = the BPFK shall be as follows.=0D =0D =0D =0D 1 For the given paradigm, a commissioner designates themselves as *shepher= d* for the paradigm, by emailing the [[Main.NickNicholas][BPFK Chair]]. The= shepherd has the responsibility of formulating the initial definition of t= he cmavo in the paradigm, of tracking all previous discussion of the cmavo,= and of incorporating criticisms and any emerging consensus into the defini= tion. In other words, they start, sustain, and end the discussion on the de= finition of the cmavo in the paradigm; that definition becomes their respon= sibility. If the task proves too much, they can delegate parts of the task = at their discretion, but are still responsible for ensuring that all necess= ary tasks are fulfilled.=0D 1 The BPFK chair posts the shepherd's name on the [[Polling]] page on the = Twiki, and the [[http://www.lojban.org/phpbb][Shepherd Announcements phpbb = forum]] , and grants them moderator priviliges to the [[http://www.lojban.o= rg/bpfk][phpbb]] forum for their paradigm.=0D 1 The shepherd familiarises themselves with the CLL explication of the par= adigm and the particular cmavo within it. This necessarily forms the starti= ng point of any definition work.=0D 1 The shepherd searches the entirety of lojban list ([[http://www.wiw.org/= ~jkominek/lojban/][old]], middle [Apr-Nov 1998], and [[http://www.yahoogrou= ps.com/group/lojban][new]]), [[http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/jboske][jbo= ske]], the (php) [[http://www.lojban.org/wiki][wiki]], and all other pertin= ent technical fora, for all past *debate* that have been conducted on the s= emantics and the grammar of the cmavo. They should take note of the issues = brought up, the distinct positions stated, and the consensus position that = has emerged (if any).=0D 1 The shepherd surveys past *usage* of the cmavo, bearing in mind the cont= roversies raised in the past, as well as any issues they feel should be rai= sed now. This means that they scan over lojban list, jbosnu, the irc logs, = JL, and all other pertinent corpora for all instances of use of the cmavo t= hat might offer data from usage for or against any proposal.=0D 1 The shepherd authors a document on the Twiki for each cmavo in the parad= igm. That document serves as the starting point for BPFK discussion, and is= termed a *definition page*. The definition page starts with an elaborated = dictionary definition of the cmavo, concentrating on the semantics. It then= expands on the grammar of the cmavo, including how it interacts grammatica= lly and semantically with other cmavo and selma'o. Where the shepherd feels= a non-trivial issue in the semantics or grammar has not been brought up to= date, they are free to include their own proposals in the document -- pro= vided that the design principles of Lojban are respected.=0D 1 For every issue where there is deviation from the existing baseline (and= CLL in particular), or where the proponent is contributing their own innov= ation, that issue must be decided on by a *[[Polling][poll]]* among the BPF= K membership. Non-members may participate in any discussions, but are barre= d from voting in the poll, on the grounds that they have not made the commi= tment to follow BPFK discussions at the level needed to make an informed vo= te. =0D 1 Each poll is accorded its own page on the Twiki. A poll page should be = hyperlinked back to the definition page for the cmavo, with a succinct link= ("[Poll]") inserted in the spot where the issue is raised. The definition = page should also contain at its conclusion an index of all polls attached t= o it. An example definition page is given at [[Nau]].=0D 1 The formulation of the poll must be preceded by documentation styled af= ter the *techfixes* of yore: it must include a description of the baselined= status quo =3D("Current Language")=3D, the proposed =3Dfix=3D or emendatio= n, and a =3Drationale=3D for the change or addition. =0D 1 Using the structure proposed in the [[http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.= php/Elephant][Elephant]], the rationale should be posted separately from th= e definition page. (As discussed below, they will currently not appear on t= he twiki at all, but on phpbb.) This means that: =0D * the definition page becomes the _Issue_. (It presupposes the affirmati= ve position for all positions raised, because the shepherd is writing the d= efinition; but the definition page is understood to be a starting point for= discussion, not an endpoint --- the shepherd will need to keep editing it.= )=0D * the polling page becomes a _Position_.=0D * The rationales and counter-rationales pages become _Arguments_.=0D 1 Where a proposal has already been proposed in the past on another forum= , the shepherd's description of the proposal must be accompanied by support= ing *documentation*, in the form of hyperlinks to the mailing list threads = and documents where the issue has previously been raised. This is so that o= ther commissioners can access and peruse those threads, to form their own o= pinions on whether prior community consensus has been respected in this for= mulation, and whether the fix is well justified. This material should resid= e on the polling page for the particular position, and can be referred to b= y commissioners posting rationales both for and against; so it needs to inc= lude *all* past discussion on the issue, pro and con.=0D 1 Wheresoever there is extant Lojban usage relevant to the proposal, the = techfix documentation on the polling page must also give a listing of all s= uch *usage*, preferably with hyperlinks, giving counts of instances support= ing and contrary to the proposal. Further breakdown by era and author may p= rove necessary. This material too can be referred to by the rationales for = and against, and should thus be placed on the polling page.=0D 1 For the time being, the generation of techfix/polling pages will not be= automated; shepherds are expected to use a *[[Polling Template][template]]= * on the Twiki instead. They are expected to adhere to its format: full rat= ionales and presentations of the status quo must be presented, and the poll= must present only three options: yes, no, and abstain. Failure to adhere t= o these guidelines will render the poll void.=0D 1 The presentation of prior debate on the cmavo must be *full and impartia= l*; shepherds are working not only to further their own views, but to docum= ent the past debate fully. Thus, revisionists must use the canonical positi= on as a departure point, and must present fully its strengths as well as it= s weaknesses. Conversely, fundamentalists must present -- and address -- th= e inadequacies in the canonical position pointed out in the past.=0D 1 There are three fora for BPFK work. It is important that they be kept se= parate to avoid confusion. =0D 1 Formal and documented statements of positions (definition pages, techfi= x proposals on polling pages) belong on the Twiki, as standalone documents = of record. The BPFK Twiki is intended to be a forum for structured presenta= tions of proposals only. In particular, the authoring of pages shall not be= incremental; this makes it impossible for commissioners to keep track of t= he current form of proposals and their authorial responsibility. The Twiki = pages are to be treated as static. These positions must not be responded to= in an unstructured way; if one finds a flaw in an argument for, one should= post a rebuttal as an argument against, along with all other arguments for= and against -- but outside of the polling page itself. Any response to thi= s rebuttal needs to be presented as a new rationale in turn. =0D 1 All debate should be taking place on *[[http://www.lojban.org/bpfk][php= bb]]* instead of Twiki. In particular, the arguments for and against a part= icular position will be posted on phpbb, rather than the Twiki. This is whe= re the true discussion of the issues takes place; the definition pages are = more like the "records" of recent memory, and will be modified in light of = the ensuing discussion. The twiki is where the shepherd lays down (and revi= ses) the law on the cmavo; the phpbb is where they make their case, and oth= ers make the case against.=0D 1 If having the arguments on phpbb proves untenable in the future, existi= ng arguments will be migrated back to Twiki. Since cross-referencing of arg= uments is necessary, each argument needs to be *numbered consecutively*. If= they are migrated back to the Twiki, they will be separated on the same pa= ge with a horizontal rule; but arguments for and against should appear on s= eparate pages. =0D 1 *Arguments must be easy to find*. Any argument posted on a phpbb Argume= nts topic must bear its incremental number in the posting subject: each pos= ting must thus be titled =3DPRO #n=3D or =3DCON #n=3D. (For easy browsing, = I recommend commissioners color-code their arguments, red PRO and blue CON.= ) Arguments pro and con are made on a single topic on the phpbb, which must= be titled in a way corresponding to the polling page, as =3D_cmavo:_ Argum= ents: _Poll Name_=3D; e.g. =3Dnau: Arguments: Sumti Tcita Here-now Descript= ion=3D. The very first post to an Arguments topic must be neither a PRO nor= a CON post, but an anchor back to the Twiki, phrased as =3DRefer to poll o= n [URL]=3D. The moderator of the topic (the shepherd), who posts this heade= r message, needs to ensure it is labelled in phpbb as 'sticky' -- that is, = it appears on the top of each page of topics. For illustration, see [[http:= //www.lojban.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3D8]]=0D 1 If arguments are migrated to the Twiki, commisioners can append their a= rguments, but must not edit previously formulated arguments. In phpbb, wher= e the arguments are currently to appear, commissioners should not postedit = their arguments; the forum itself will keep track of authorship.=0D 1 Administering debate on an issue -- the *meta-forum* -- also belongs on= the [[http://www.lojban.org/bpfk][phpbb]] forum. For instance, this is whe= re requests for clarification of arguments and positions can be made; where= polls are announced; and where anti-shepherds get decided (see below.) Suc= h meta-talk must be kept separate from any arguments on polls; these will b= e in separate topics, and restricted to formal presentations of arguments. = The moderator is entitled to prune informal posts out of the Arguments thre= ads, as off-topic, and onto general discussion threads.=0D 1 More open-ended issues, which require free-style debate, should be rais= ed on the *jboske* mailing list. Free-style debate is not recommended, howe= ver, given the complexity and volume of the issues involved.=0D 1 The responsibility for the content of any page rests with the author of = that page, and any adjustments to the page that emerge as necessary through= discussion must be undertaken by the author. (If arguments are migrated to= the Twiki, authority for any argument remains with its author, and all arg= uments must be signed.)=0D 1 If a commissioner requests that a particular issue in the shepherd's pro= posal be *brought to vote*, the shepherd must create an additional poll pag= e to that effect, hyperlinked as with the other poll pages from the definit= ion page on the cmavo. =0D 1 If the request concerns an innovation, the shepherd is obliged to provi= de a status quo and fix proposal for their innovation, and should post an a= rgument defending the innovation. The opposing commissioner may supply a re= futation as is normal with arguments. =0D 1 Conversely, if the request is for an innovation which the shepherd has = not proposed -- that is, if there is something else the commissioner wants = changed in the language -- then the shepherd must decide whether they agree= with the request or not. If they agree, they present the proposal as with = the other techfix/polls. If they disagree, they must allow the techfix/poll= to be authored and attached, but they are released from the obligation of = authoring the proposal themselves -- in which case that is the opposing com= missioner's responsibility. The shepherd is always free to post arguments a= gainst the proposal.=0D 1 On releasing the definition page, the shepherd makes a *call* on the php= bb for arguments to be made on the Twiki, for each position raised. The dea= dline for arguments shall be at the shepherd's discretion, as it will vary = according to the complexity of the issue; but it should by default expire w= ith two weeks of no new postings made to the php Arguments forum. The sheph= erd then calls for polls to be voted on for those positions; again the dead= line is at the shepherd's discretion, but by default shall be a week. Commi= ssioners can change their votes before the deadline expiration.=0D 1 Coherent *naming* of pages in the Twiki must be adhered to, to allow inf= ormation to be accessed and classed readily. In particular, any pages discu= ssing a cmavo or selma'o must have their title begin with that cmavo or sel= ma'o. (The Twiki address space is case-sensitive.)=0D 1 The shepherd *administers the phpbb forum* on their paradigm, as moderat= or. If the issues being discussed become inordinately complex, the shepherd= may at their discretion split the forum into distinct fora, specific to pa= rticular cmavo or to particular areas of discussion within a cmavo. The tit= les of fora and discussion should also be readily identifiable.=0D 1 Once the discussion document has been posted on the Twiki, the shepherd = shall post an "executive summary" on the *[[http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste= ][jbovlaste]]*, as a brief definition. It will be at the discretion of the = dictionary editors to decide how much of the BPFK work will end up in the d= ictionary proper, how much in a CLL supplement, and how much online without= entering into book form. The shepherd is responsible for entering at least= a bare minimum into jbovlaste; if a choice needs to be made, the priority = goes to the cmavo semantics, rather than its grammar. Non-trivial examples = should also be entered into jbovlaste, preferably from actual spontaneous u= sage. jbovlaste is not a valid forum for the BPFK to deliberate on the meri= ts and failings of particular proposals, however much that ends up happenin= g for lujvo. The forum of record for the BPFK remains Twiki (content) and p= hpbb (meta/rationales), and splitting discussion off into multiple fora imp= edes the BPFK getting its work done efficiently.=0D 1 A definition may encounter significant *opposition* (requiring at least = two commissioners unable to accept the proposal as a whole, or at least in = some crucial details of those put to poll). Recall that the BPFK operates b= y consensus, not majority vote; the objection of two commissioners is suffi= cient to demonstrate that consensus has not been reached. If the shepherd c= annot reconcile their definition with such opposition from other commission= ers, then the BPFK chair, in consultation with the participants in the deba= te, shall designate an *anti-shepherd* to formulate an alternate complete d= efinition document for the paradigm. The anti-shepherd will be expected to = follow the same steps as the shepherd, and to link in to their proposal all= existing poll pages. Once the counterproposal is formulated, there shall b= e a global vote on which of the two proposals better reflects BPFK opinion = on the paradigm. This is intended as a last resort measure, however, since = it deviates from the pursuit of consensus.=0D 1 Two negative votes are sufficient to *defeat* a proposed innovation; if = this occurs, the shepherd has the responsibility either to withdraw the inn= ovation (in a way that does the remainder of the definition as presented le= ast violence), or to moderate it to satisfy the opponents' concerns, by pla= cing a new description of the issue in the definition page, and a new poll = attached to it. It is not the intent to present rival solutions for selecti= on in a poll; that works against establishing a clear consensus. If two riv= al solutions emerge, however, it is appropriate to conduct informal and non= -binding straw-polls on their relative popularity on phpbb.=0D 1 Proposals must always be phrased with the vote for innovation being in = the *affirmative*: it must be easy to impede innovation, rather than diffic= ult to defend the current standard. =0D 1 The *minimum number of votes* required for a vote to be valid is three;= there is no requirement that all commissioners vote on an issue. =0D 1 Where the notions of *majorities and minorities* become relevant, they = are deemed to be the majority or minority of commissioners who have voted, = not of the entire BPFK.=0D =0D ---+ Ideology=0D =0D 1 The BPFK is entrusted with the task of elaborating the definition of cma= vo, while maintaining backward compatibility with the existing cmavo. =0D 1 *Elaboration* in semantic or grammatical specificity is therefore alway= s a legitimate goal for commissioners to pursue within the BPFK. Indeed (in= what is intended as an unabashed departure from prior policy), I believe a= s BPFK chair that "Let Usage Decide" is no longer an acceptable default for= Lojban semantics. Letting Usage Decide has already led to [[http://www.loj= ban.org/wiki/index.php/Humpty-Dumpty][humpty-dumpty]]ing, confusion about s= emantics, and divergence within the community. The policy was intended to a= llow language elaboration to occur in a "natural" way in a robust, post-bas= eline, large language community; but both ideological and practical issues = make it necessary to fill in now gaps previously "left to usage". =0D 1 As a result, if a commissioner advocates that the BPFK should *Let Usag= e Decide* some issue, they must supply an explicit rationale why; "Because = that is the Lojban Way" is not an adequate rationale. The BPFK shall explor= e elaboration, rather than "organicism", as the Lojban way, to the extent t= hat it is feasible -- even though clearly it will not be possible to specif= y everything, and there will inevitably remain aspects of the language to b= e determined by Usage. (In particular, Lojban stylistics cannot be prescrib= ed by the BPFK, although some trends in a Standard Lojban Style may already= be noted.)=0D 1 Elaboration includes supplying explicit means of grammatical or semantic= *disambiguation*, where such are not currently available.=0D 1 The *[[http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/Grice%20Salvator]["Grice Sa= lvator"]]* is not an adequate argument against such a venture, although vio= lation of the design principles of Lojban is. =0D 1 Elaboration can also involve more *formal statements* of the definition= of cmavo. Individual commissioners' unfamiliarity with details of logic or= formal semantics does not render such a pursuit illegitimate, although the= proponents have a strong moral (and practical) obligation to explain their= proposals in terms accessible to non-specialists. =0D 1 Elaboration also includes the resolution of *inconsistencies* in the ex= isting baseline, the elimination of which remains the *first priority of th= e BPFK*.=0D 1 The second priority of the BPFK is *maintenance of backward compatibilit= y*. Formulations in CLL in particular may be annulled only when CLL is *"br= oken"*: that is, =0D * where there is internal contradiction (including with the machine gramm= ar, which is deemed part of CLL), =0D * violation of design principles of Lojban (including syntactic and morph= ological ambiguity), =0D * or overwhelming disconfirmation from usage. =0D * While *logical analysis* will not have a primary role in advocating bre= aking compatibility with CLL, it can legitimately have a primary role in mo= tivating elaboration of the CLL prescription -- as can usage.=0D 1 The *design principles* of Lojban have been spelled out to some extent a= lready, but will need to be spelled out further. =0D 1 Lack of *morphological and syntactic ambiguity* is a design criterion. = So is the ability to *resolve semantic ambiguity* by providing additional i= nformation, whether lexically or grammatically. =0D 1 Lojban also has certain *established ways* of dealing with grammar -- e= mploying an LALR1 grammar, resolving morphology using certain algorithms, a= ssuming an extensional classical logic as underlying the language -- which = are essential to its definition, and therefore the baseline. Going outside = these established approaches is a legitimate task of exploration for Lojban= ists, and the results may end up a better fit than the current mechanisms a= re to Lojban (or to Lojban as it will end up being used). However, these al= ternatives may not supplant the current mechanisms in their definitional ro= le. To do so would underline the established baseline more radically than t= he BPFK has a mandate for: *the BPFK has a mandate to flesh out the design = of Lojban, not to redesign it*.=0D 1 So the fact that Lojban is based on *classical predicate logic* should = be considered a definitional trait of the language. Insights from classical= logic are, as a result, legitimate grounds for any argument on Lojban gram= mar. =0D 1 The *conventions* of classical logic do not have the same binding stat= us on Lojban, but where Lojban does things differently from logic, some jus= tificcation will be expected. (Refer to the [[http://www.lojban.org/wiki/in= dex.php/quantification%20and%20the%20meaning%20of%20ro]["Importing ro"]] di= scussion for an illustration of such an issue.) =0D 1 Insights from *other traditions* in the analysis of language and reaso= ning, such as contemporary formal semantics and non-traditional logics, are= also legitimate, provided that they do not usurp classical predicate logic= as the definitional basis of the language. =0D 1 For example, any treatment of Lojban gadri needs to accord primacy to= extensions rather than intensions, notwithstanding the primacy of intensio= ns in Montague grammar: the metalanguage of Lojban as defined in CLL is exp= licitly extensional, and to revise that would require discarding whole chap= ters thereof. =0D 1 Likewise, though Lojban can accomodate fuzzy logic, the default logic= of the language is categorial and truth-conditional.=0D 1 The fact that alternative frameworks may be more elegant than the bas= elined Lojban framework is not a sufficient rationale to discard that frame= work: inelegance does not constitute brokenness.=0D 1 Brokenness, however, _does_ constitute brokenness. For instance, the = failure of current standard Lojban to differentiate between the number of e= ntities sought is a problem requiring a remedy -- although not necessarily = a Montagovian remedy.=0D 1 Similarly, an alternative *BNF or YACC* LALR2 grammar may have the same= descriptive adequacy as the current YACC grammar, and may even have greate= r explanatory adequacy, as it will likely produce a more intuitive descript= ion of the language. While the current baseline remains in effect, however,= the BPFK has no authority to replace the YACC grammar with a completely di= fferent grammar formalism. (As it stands, the BPFK has an uphill battle eve= n in revising individual parser rules.) So while the Lojban community needs= and must support alternative formalisations (as seen in the mass adoption = of [[http://go.to/jbofihe][jbofi'e]], based on the semi-official EBNF gramm= ar), the definitional formalisation remains unchanged. In the case of gramm= ar, that definitional formalisation is the official, YACC-based grammar.=0D 1 Likewise, alternate formulations of the Lojban *morphology rules* are w= elome; but where defined rules of Lojban morphology exist, such formulation= s cannot supplant them. A separate morphology commission (vlataipla fuzykam= ni) has been constituted by the Board, reporting to the BPFK chair.=0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D -- Main.NickNicholas - 23 Mar 2003=0D --NMuMz9nt05w80d4+--