Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 05:14:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711161014.FAA06163@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Ashley Yakeley Sender: Lojban list From: Ashley Yakeley Subject: Irony and the Baseline X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1368 X-From-Space-Date: Sun Nov 16 05:14:11 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU At 1997-11-14 10:12, Logical Language Group wrote: >The refgrammar is only a book, and only omne of several we intend to >publish to reflect the baseline. It is a grammar first and formost, and >is not a statemenht of philosophy (though some of that by necessity went >into the writing). But surely publishing any material now that adds to or otherwise modifies the language as defined by the existing published material would constitute a violation of the baseline, at least in spirit? A statement of philosophy would be great, but there's a difference between philosophy and prescription. >>and it's too late to change it now > >Well you are making a strong case that one of the other books needs to >include this philosophical matter stated clearly. But it is not a >change so it isn;t too late. It's an addition. I think that counts as a change. Bear in mind there are no rules {javni} in the published baseline material forbidding irony, so it is quite alarming at least to me as a learner of the language to have these new rules apparently popping up out of nowhere. I am at least heartened that there are no rules in the sense of {javni} in the refgram, so I can reasonably ignore all _loi javni_ that anyone may care to foist upon me without compromising any skill I may acquire in Lojban. -- Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA http://www.halcyon.com/ashleyb/