Date: Sat, 20 Mar 93 12:34:10 -0500
From: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group)
Message-Id: <9303201734.AA25055@daily.grebyn.com>
To: nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU
Subject: Re:  TECH: Lujvo Paper (Part 3)
Cc: cowan@snark.thyrsus.com
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011

If any experimental cmavo are mentioned in formal papers describing the
language as being the "way to do something" then they are no longer
experimental but rather part of our pedagogical teaching.  As such, they
should be assigned a non-xVV cmavo assignment.   Your use of xo'e in this
paper seems to be non-incidental, and if the discussion stays in, it will
need an assignment ("If" meaning that I haven't actually read what you say
about it, and intend no implication as to whether I think it should or s
shouldn't be made non-experimental.)

xVV cmavo are supposed to be unofficial as well as experimental.  there are
plenty of cmavo in the language that we aren't sure will work in real usage
quite as we intended in creating them, and hence they are expeiments as well,
but the xVV ones are even more tentative.  I would eventually like to see
xVV proposals be a thing discussed on the list and in JL, while  NOT seeing
them as a matter of course in books until they have passed the test of usage,
upon which they get assigned a real cmavo value.  THis probably will be 
violated in the first reference book, since there has been no basis
established for communicating these experiments prior to now.

lojbab