From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:55:27 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 31 Mar 1993 13:12:16 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9632; Wed, 31 Mar 93 13:10:56 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8349; Wed, 31 Mar 93 13:12:01 EST Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 17:39:48 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK Sender: Lojban list From: Mr Andrew Rosta Subject: version declaration for le lojbau X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET To: Erik Rauch Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Apr 3 18:39:48 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: Sometimes when a grammar change is being discussed, people worry not that the change will involve a lot of relearning but rather that the change will invalidate existing text. Has it been considered that after each baseline stage the language be named with a version name or number, and that there be some way of declaring the version used in a text. Then changes could be made to the grammar with a guarantee that formal correspondences have been established between successive versions. And. ps I think _lo/le lojbau_ more appropriate than _la lojban_. Certainly in English, at least, words whose sense is a language behave like mass nouns rather than names. (E.g. _The Lojban you speak is better than the Lojban I speak.) Consequently I advocate the offical adoption of lots of lujvo like _lojbau, glibau, rusybau_ and lehavla for the rest (I forget the rules for lehavla - are _banava'o_ and _bantagalog_ OK?).