From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Feb 6 22:56:49 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sun, 7 Feb 1993 09:04:02 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7118; Sun, 07 Feb 93 09:03:04 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0130; Sun, 07 Feb 93 09:04:22 EST Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 03:56:49 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: clarifying, I hope X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: I've realized that the way I worded something in the last post on John's proposal may not settle well, and hence would like to reword it (and maybe focus on it in case it is a misconception to others). I DO NOT mean to imply that only a proposal made by Nora, John, or Lojbab warrants serious consideration, and hopefully no one has come to understand that. I condensed two ideas into one sentence there. Any proposal requiring a grammar change must be written up to include the specific YACC changes required, which normally John or Lojbab has done, though Colin did so with his relative clause postings. So we have to understand the proposal, and be convinced of its support enough to do some YACCing, unless the proposer is willing/able to do the work. It is preferred that such proposals have a brief summary of the status quo and the rationale,after the format that Cowan has used, and has been posted on this list/printed in JL, for a formal grammar baseline change proposal. (I'll note that the *mo'e change has NOT reached this state yet and is still tentative, even though John, Nora adn Lojbab support it) The second part of the statement is perhaps more controversial in that I figure that any proposal that has convinced none of the three of us to support it probably is far enough from a consensus as to consider it still tentative. I include Nora because she doesn't read the day-to-day interaction on Lojban List, but evaluates ideas strongly on their own merit (she almost never proposes new things on her own); John and I tend to (in our opinion at least) be more or less strongly influenced by strnegth and numbers of support from commenters on the List, although often in different ways. I cetainly hope, and do not think, that we have acquired a "not invented here" attitude and want to avoid giving that impression by what I write. lojbab