Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f61.google.com ([209.85.215.61]:63332)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhCU-Lf9BBoEgbJibQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1ST5Lw-00038G-1D; Fri, 11 May 2012 22:59:05 -0700
Received: by laai10 with SMTP id i10sf1079972laa.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 11 May 2012 22:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=C1Sb9jqIeTDI3F5G/EP4mJhdZkQzBb8Xc30aie0mBrc=;
        b=ThXKB10f3qekD+O/yorSwk+Be7vCwL+uhwDJZbjF9lQ9N2AGXV6VXl5PlEQbYZ8Jdf
         wJ9CCMHs+BQHWsfAIdcDMbbNfvSXG1QjOZ2adpRHuXhBOVO8iDHpG7lfR/ZLKbisbHTd
         44UyXYnmWMFdv/jqZ1qHVH0+tFOyRiyPi+IUI=
Received: by 10.204.133.195 with SMTP id g3mr10400bkt.23.1336802324022;
        Fri, 11 May 2012 22:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.130.145 with SMTP id t17ls6293331bks.8.gmail; Fri, 11 May
 2012 22:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.149.210 with SMTP id u18mr81115bkv.1.1336802322224;
        Fri, 11 May 2012 22:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.149.210 with SMTP id u18mr81114bkv.1.1336802322201;
        Fri, 11 May 2012 22:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f47.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f47.google.com [209.85.215.47])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hy18si13704739bkc.2.2012.05.11.22.58.42
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 11 May 2012 22:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.47;
Received: by lags15 with SMTP id s15so3310751lag.34
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Fri, 11 May 2012 22:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.147.100 with SMTP id tj4mr661201lab.39.1336802321809; Fri,
 11 May 2012 22:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.22.68 with HTTP; Fri, 11 May 2012 22:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120511233208.GC1837@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
References: <13765994.1942.1336566814390.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynss9>
	<20120509170127.GR27762@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
	<27554010.67.1336587846504.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngr14>
	<20120509192018.GS27762@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
	<524651.567.1336675068460.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbak7>
	<28872598.911.1336731707204.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbws2>
	<CAMKwHj3t7rHwWWUDoWbYzdXtuviVn=iky9S1pJd93WbsEkEtHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120511233208.GC1837@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 23:58:41 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMKwHj11Ef+3v7TZ-deikDpMRGKY3mzY0WGQ1-O4QZoJi0Fe4A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Word changing and word creation (was Re: [lojban] bugs in jbovlaste)
From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=eyeonus@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f22bd8986bf5004bfd08bc9
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--e89a8f22bd8986bf5004bfd08bc9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Robin Lee Powell <
rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 06:54:45AM -0600, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 4:21 AM, gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:37:48 PM UTC+4, ianek wrote:
> > >> Fine, I've just added aionys' complaints about familial gismu, and
> also
> > >> xorxes' proposed definition of xruti. If anynone knows about other
> proposed
> > >> changes, please check whether they're there and if not, add them.
> > >>
> > >
> > > What's that with {xruti}? It's agentive, don't touch it!
> > > Let's create another experimental gismu with the definition {x1 (agent)
> > > returns to origin/earlier state x3 from x4} or possibly with another
> order
> > > of sumti.
> > > But {xruti} must retain the meaning.
> > > *OTHERWISE WE'LL LOSE COMPATIBILITY WITH OLDER TEXTS.*
> > >
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Second, you are over-reacting. Also, it is my personal opinion that,
> > especially in the case of xruti, breaking older text is worth not having
> a
> > broken place structure.
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > In short, we do /not/ make new gismu unless it is /absolutely/ necessary.
>
> FWIW, as the apparent overlord these days, I disagree, *strongly*,
> with both of those points.  gismu should not be changed unless it
> can be shown that particular places have been very rarely used
> correctly, and I think making a bunch more gismu is a great idea.
>
> When CLLv1.1 is done, maybe I'll have time to finish my essay on the
> latter issue, and word creation in general.
>
> -Robin
>

Regarding the first point, I disagree that the /only/ time to change gismu
is when people don't use it right. For example, the issue with irregular
place structures. No one has incorrectly used the places of these words-
unless you count using a place that doesn't exist because you think it
does, and I don't- but I am of the opinion that these gismu should still be
changed, especially in the cases where the change would not break current
texts, as in the case with the familial gismu.

Regarding the second, I was more referring to current policy than any
future practices. I have little opinion on the matter myself, save that I
would prefer as little overlap as possible between new and existing gismu.
There are places where we are sorely lacking, I'm sure, but I don't think
we need to create new gismu that are really just synonyms of existing ones.

-- 
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.


--e89a8f22bd8986bf5004bfd08bc9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Robin Lee Powel=
l <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org" targ=
et=3D"_blank">rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockqu=
ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc s=
olid;padding-left:1ex">
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 06:54:45AM -0600, Jonathan Jones wrote:<br>
&gt; On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 4:21 AM, gleki &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gleki.is.=
my.name@gmail.com">gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; On Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:37:48 PM UTC+4, ianek wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt;&gt; Fine, I&#39;ve just added aionys&#39; complaints about famili=
al gismu, and also<br>
&gt; &gt;&gt; xorxes&#39; proposed definition of xruti. If anynone knows ab=
out other proposed<br>
&gt; &gt;&gt; changes, please check whether they&#39;re there and if not, a=
dd them.<br>
&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; What&#39;s that with {xruti}? It&#39;s agentive, don&#39;t touch =
it!<br>
&gt; &gt; Let&#39;s create another experimental gismu with the definition {=
x1 (agent)<br>
&gt; &gt; returns to origin/earlier state x3 from x4} or possibly with anot=
her order<br>
&gt; &gt; of sumti.<br>
&gt; &gt; But {xruti} must retain the meaning.<br>
&gt; &gt; *OTHERWISE WE&#39;LL LOSE COMPATIBILITY WITH OLDER TEXTS.*<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
[snip]<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Second, you are over-reacting. Also, it is my personal opinion that,<b=
r>
&gt; especially in the case of xruti, breaking older text is worth not havi=
ng a<br>
&gt; broken place structure.<br>
&gt;<br>
[snip]<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; In short, we do /not/ make new gismu unless it is /absolutely/ necessa=
ry.<br>
<br>
FWIW, as the apparent overlord these days, I disagree, *strongly*,<br>
with both of those points. =A0gismu should not be changed unless it<br>
can be shown that particular places have been very rarely used<br>
correctly, and I think making a bunch more gismu is a great idea.<br>
<br>
When CLLv1.1 is done, maybe I&#39;ll have time to finish my essay on the<br=
>
latter issue, and word creation in general.<br>
<br>
-Robin<br></blockquote></div><br>Regarding the first point, I disagree that=
 the /only/ time to change gismu is when people don&#39;t use it right. For=
 example, the issue with irregular place structures. No one has incorrectly=
 used the places of these words- unless you count using a place that doesn&=
#39;t exist because you think it does, and I don&#39;t- but I am of the opi=
nion that these gismu should still be changed, especially in the cases wher=
e the change would not break current texts, as in the case with the familia=
l gismu.<br>
<br>Regarding the second, I was more referring to current policy than any f=
uture practices. I have little opinion on the matter myself, save that I wo=
uld prefer as little overlap as possible between new and existing gismu. Th=
ere are places where we are sorely lacking, I&#39;m sure, but I don&#39;t t=
hink we need to create new gismu that are really just synonyms of existing =
ones.<br clear=3D"all">
<br>-- <br>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e .aionys.<br><br>.i.e&#39;ucai ko cmima lo piln=
o be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo&#39;o<br>(Come to the Dot Side! Lu=
ke, I am your father. :D )<br><br>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.<br />



--e89a8f22bd8986bf5004bfd08bc9--