From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Aug 15 10:02:55 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1McMec-0005Ky-7v for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:02:54 -0700 Received: from mail-pz0-f201.google.com ([209.85.222.201]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1McMeT-0005Gu-Hm for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:02:53 -0700 Received: by pzk39 with SMTP id 39so1274631pzk.25 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:02:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:x-mailer; bh=2mP3dFWaAPQ+7wN9cehx0ucXMvG6WQ65hG3k7LHKo4g=; b=wo8bu4ATX/D5b7duQNlxOi4HoDxZsAur88Fa9FMLPGgsOWr+lh0piB6RHjOSyymvfC LuBO6lSJaekJePJ2aU1UHcOm4LMMqDpGtqJMFa7Rdpb29zqRcyj+Z0HbxHnYR7roTZQJ EqNaWP6/9/Wa8J6eQUpVMBoefW/f1R6kbMP3s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :x-mailer; b=P/gCjYwcu48/vbYC+ksjy68a7XDISaSyfzhLaZQ8cdZJJiJ/GA+uGfGp7rY2Zqb2HY WWEKQkk/F3DBhIRLXpO5jZVoTxN+i9hdQKoVwuDmm9R8gZ2tNhyaMEfVgnMe/VIuV+l+ V7zkSKIp6nu0C7KW+IwmEsfWcELW3nM0rcHkU= Received: by 10.140.142.8 with SMTP id p8mr1519349rvd.11.1250355759737; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.101? (ip68-226-115-170.ph.ph.cox.net [68.226.115.170]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l31sm6781677rvb.54.2009.08.15.10.02.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <420EC5E8-E9BE-4A46-B1A1-B12C0E986B79@choi.name> From: Joshua Choi To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560908150939w3233b3fdt84799e1d3932d2a0@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: coi ro do Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:02:37 -0700 References: <4A868DBB.7050008@cosmicray.co.uk> <925d17560908150821k455d4c89q17f2bacfd34e92a@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560908150939w3233b3fdt84799e1d3932d2a0@mail.gmail.com> X-archive-position: 2016 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: joshua@choi.name Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners I see. From what I can tell, "xorlo" is some sort of proposal for reform of the article system of Lojban. But I have two questions: - The gadri proposal was "has now been accepted by a vote of 11 to 0 by the BPFK". The proposal seems to date from 2004. Are there plans to edit the reference grammar (and The Complete Lojban Language physical book) to reflect these new guidelines, or is there still not enough consensus in the community, or has there not been enough resources to edit the book? - The proposal has information on the new meanings of the non- deprecated articles, but none on the deprecated articles. (For instance, why was it decided that the articles for typical and stereotypical objects should be deprecated, and what should I use instead?) I found couple of old mailing list messages, but they're hard to follow. Where could I find more information on the proposal's deprecation? On 15 August 2009, at 9:39 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 8/15/09, Joshua Choi wrote: >> Oh, I'm kind of confused now. Are these general guidelines for >> general >> usage? > > I only speak for myself, but yes, I recommend them for general usage. > >> Do they override the guidelines of the reference grammar? > > Not officially, at least not yet. But the question was about "xorlo", > which is not mentioned in the reference grammar. > >> Are lo'e, le'e, lo'i, etc. really deprecated? > > By me, yes. Officially, not. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > >