From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat May 26 07:27:35 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 26 May 2007 07:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HrxEx-0003gF-3b for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 26 May 2007 07:27:32 -0700 Received: from 25.mail-out.ovh.net ([213.186.37.103]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HrxEc-0003g5-AD for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 26 May 2007 07:27:19 -0700 Received: (qmail 23892 invoked by uid 503); 26 May 2007 14:24:54 -0000 Received: (QMFILT: 1.0); 26 May 2007 14:24:54 -0000 Received: from b7.ovh.net (HELO mail85.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.57) by 25.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 26 May 2007 14:24:54 -0000 Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 26 May 2007 14:26:36 -0000 Received: from 83.40-225-89.dsl.completel.net (83.40-225-89.dsl.completel.net [89.225.40.83]) by ssl0.ovh.net (IMP) with HTTP for ; Sat, 26 May 2007 16:26:36 +0200 Message-ID: <1180189596.4658439c6f831@ssl0.ovh.net> Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 16:26:36 +0200 From: m.kornig@sondal.net To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: BPFK Taskmaster References: <351279.40196.qm@web88008.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <1180185147.4658323b1ed04@ssl0.ovh.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.6 X-Originating-IP: 89.225.40.83 X-Spam-Score: 0.6 X-Spam-Score-Int: 6 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 4689 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: m.kornig@sondal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners I think a few SHORT texts featuring VERY SIMPLE language would be interesting for beginners, e.g. for me ;-) And you should be able to check/publish such texts before sorting out the "rarest cmavo" and other sophisticated details. Don't you think? In fact, I believe that it's quite normal for ANY language to have experts argue (and possibly disagree) about certain sophisticated grammar points. So you don't have to be worried too much if this happens to Lojban, too... Martin Selon Matt Arnold : > But as Robin just said, there currently is no process and we aren't > ready yet to institute one. He said that we first must finish > clarifying the precise meanings and edge use cases of the rarest > cmavo, so that we will be able to verify their usage. We must complete > work on the standard before we can know if a text with weird usages is > conforming to the more esoteric areas of the standard. > > However, we all now agree that it is within the BPFK's mandate and > purview to put this on their to-do list. > > -Matt > > > On 5/26/07, m.kornig@sondal.net wrote: > > I totally agree. > > > > Selon ANDREW PIEKARSKI : > > > > > .. texts .. reviewed or > > > declared compliant by the committee. If some have, then they should be > > > declared as such. Beginners will feel more comfortable knowing that the > text > > > they are studying has gone through the process.