From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Sat Feb 3 12:39:05 1996 Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id MAA00355 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 1996 12:38:57 -0500 Message-Id: <199602031738.MAA00355@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by vms.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id C8D7F851 ; Sat, 3 Feb 1996 12:08:25 -0500 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 07:07:04 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: my take on the lujvo paper To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1044 My policy has been that the stuff in the lujvo paper will be "a" standard for lujvo making but not necessarily the only standard nor an "official" standard in that anyone is compelled to follow it as part of a baseline. But then lujvo place structures are not being baselined, so the latter would not be appropriate at this time. In any event, Jorge is the only one who has even half-tested Nick's rules by trying to analyze a significant number of lujvo on his own, and I am not sure he actually checked to see if he followed the rules. Before I express stronger support for the lujvo paper "guidelines", I will want to see that other people agree with what it results in, and can and will follow it in defining lujvo place structures. We have a couple thousand of them to be analyzed, so people who are strong proponents of the standard are welcome to prove the standard %^). lojbab (responding to Cowan's statement calling for Lojban Central to consider the lujvo paper on a par with the rest of the refgrammar)