Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 06:16:01 -0400
From: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group)
Message-Id: <9207291016.AA22830@daily.grebyn.com>
Subject: Re:  JL16
Cc: cowan@snark.thyrsus.com
Content-Length: 1590
Lines: 27

I'll get back to you on the slang dictionary.

I'll look at possible alternate fonts.  I have avoided Sans Serif for 
historical reasons:  the Loglan books were set in Sans Serif type, and
using the writing conventions of old Loglan, the word ".ia" and the word
"la" were sometimes confused when there was reason to capitalize the
former.  This is less of a problem under our current orthography, but
still bothers me.  If I find a sans serif font hat can distinguish the
two letters, I can use it.  The Univers font used a bit in the dictionary
stuff on the back page is the easiest alternate candidate, being built
into the printer.

I'm sympathetic on the redundancy issue, but the real question is - what rafsi
are 'needed'.  I've tended to assign them where available, because people
have sometimes (as with 'ka') turned out to want to use rafsi in positions and
with choices differently from what I might suggest.  New gismu are not 
affected by this, since the post baseline policy has specifically said that if
rafsi assignment is an issue, then recognition score will take second low
priority (i.e. the word will be stuck out where we still have rafsi available).
I don't anticipate the gismu list growing very quickly, of course.

We might consider certain rafsi assignments, as these 'extra ones', to be 
labelled 'tentative' , and to specifically identify them to be reviewed at
some future specific time (such as just before the 5-year baseline), wherein
they might be eliminated.  This could be noted in the reference book, since the 
number of rafsi affected would be small.