From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Oct 18 06:24:18 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:24:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IiVMA-00058v-Fv for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:24:15 -0700 Received: from web88008.mail.re2.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.195]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IiVLs-00058D-DB for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:24:04 -0700 Received: (qmail 22872 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Oct 2007 13:23:28 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=rogers.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=mPM3e51wwcoGks6fx/+bpVpaLCh75IQwazAns+8yjFdNW/K8CB//kGiw6w1VOOausC0LHXy6HHtyBmaIGSn55WSFINVB94vLdu5h0SLUDUef+ERUwd6NMGfkJB75jfGnwhM3dHThjrJCjgaW4K/ImeKIWKlRQWJn0xg9Ghy9MF4=; X-YMail-OSG: fzh4h.AVM1kN0c_emU6bTsfU_3OU23PupO0ErvMXAJaZY4iuU0DpCW.3r.Cpn10lGJKAJdqnf1EVk1qVxdEad3bVLzD422uywgx0qF0ZcvpHz1MR.Fyn4gQys1I60EJXT80MBBbcWQiFYAw- Received: from [99.229.22.94] by web88008.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:23:28 PDT Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:23:28 -0700 (PDT) From: ANDREW PIEKARSKI Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Why not a new LfB text? To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1321068043-1192713808=:21198" Message-ID: <617324.21198.qm@web88008.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 5495 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: totus@rogers.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --0-1321068043-1192713808=:21198 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Robert LeChevalier = =0ATo: lojban-beginners@lojban.org=0ASent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 1:45= :54 PM=0ASubject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Why not a new LfB text?=0A=0A=0AAN= DREW PIEKARSKI wrote:=0A> But will this issue be an open one forever, or is= there a date by which =0A> we can expect a final decsion? =0A=0AThere is n= o specific date, and given my record of promising dictionaries =0Aand textb= ooks for many years without delivering, you would be wise not =0Ato believe= me if I did give a date.=0A=0A> Having all of the community accept the cha= nge is surely an impossibility=0A=0ANo.=0A=0AThere have been far greater ch= anges that have been easily accepted.=0A=0A>- in the meantime, confusion wi= ll reign unabated.=0A=0AIt shouldn't, since it is claimed xorlo would make = very little pre-xorlo =0Atext incorrect. xorlo affects the logico-semanti= c analysis of a gadri =0Aexpression, but does not change the grammar.=0A=0A= Things have muddled along without xorlo for 20 years, and for 30 years =0Ab= efore that in Loglan. Xorxes has been arguing for changes of the sort =0Ai= ncorporated into xorlo for about 13 years. It is hard to see the lack =0Ao= f a final decision as a crisis.=0A=0AJust how are such things decided?=0A= =0ABy consensus among the byfy membership, and consensus sometimes takes a = =0Awhile to achieve, especially since a "final decision" is not a high =0Ap= riority for many of us. Furthermore, the policy right now is that NO =0Ade= cisions will be final until we have completed ALL of the baseline =0Areview= , and defined ALL of the cmavo.=0A=0AMany thanks - that clarifies a lot of = issues. But I would like to know what remains to be done to complete the b= aseline review after the cmavo definition are done. In any case, given the= large number of camvos, and the possibility of endless (?) discussions on = each of them, this could take many many years. Am I right?=0A=0Amu'o mi'e = andrus --0-1321068043-1192713808=:21198 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0A

 
=0A
=0A
----- Original Messa= ge ----
From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
To: lojban= -beginners@lojban.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 1:45:54 PM
Su= bject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Why not a new LfB text?

=0A
ANDREW= PIEKARSKI wrote:
> But will this issue be an open one forever, or is= there a date by which
> we can expect a final decsion?

Ther= e is no specific date, and given my record of promising dictionaries
an= d textbooks for many years without delivering, you would be wise not
to= believe me if I did give a date.

> Having all of the community a= ccept the change is surely an impossibility

No.

There have be= en far greater changes that have been easily accepted.

>- in the = meantime, confusion will reign unabated.

It shouldn't, since it is c= laimed xorlo would make very little pre-xorlo
text incorrect. &nbs= p; xorlo affects the logico-semantic analysis of a gadri
expression, bu= t does not change the grammar.

Things have muddled along without xor= lo for 20 years, and for 30 years
before that in Loglan.  Xor= xes has been arguing for changes of the sort
incorporated into xorlo for about 13 years.  It is hard to s= ee the lack
of a final decision as a crisis.

Just how are such t= hings decided?

By consensus among the byfy membership, and consensus= sometimes takes a
while to achieve, especially since a "final decision= " is not a high
priority for many of us.  Furthermore, the po= licy right now is that NO
decisions will be final until we have complet= ed ALL of the baseline
review, and defined ALL of the cmavo.

Man= y thanks - that clarifies a lot of issues.  But I would like to know w= hat remains to be done to complete the baseline review after the cmavo= definition are done.  In any case, given the large number of camvos, = and the possibility of endless (?) discussions on each of them, this could = take many many years.  Am I right?
=0A
 
=0A
mu= 'o mi'e andrus
--0-1321068043-1192713808=:21198--