From sentto-44114-2076-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Thu Feb 24 20:01:27 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 16072 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 20:01:26 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 20:01:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 17614 invoked by uid 40001); 24 Feb 2000 20:04:45 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 17611 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 20:04:44 -0000 Received: from ch.egroups.com (208.48.218.21) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 20:04:44 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2076-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.36] by ch.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Feb 2000 20:04:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 24420 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 20:04:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Feb 2000 20:04:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy.cais.net) (199.0.216.101) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 20:04:39 -0000 Received: from bob (dynamic81.cl7.cais.net [205.177.20.81]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA01231 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:03:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000224145218.00b5ba90@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 To: "lojban@onelist.com" In-Reply-To: <38B55BC6.7F8EEDB0@reutershealth.com> References: <4.2.2.20000224014440.00b36250@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:04:19 -0500 X-eGroups-From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" Subject: Re: [lojban] banli pu'u fanva Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 11:26 AM 02/24/2000 -0500, John Cowan wrote: >From: John Cowan > >"Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" wrote: > > > [T]he people running the project are not going to want > > half-baked translations which is the best that any Lojbanist could do at > > this point. > >Why should they care? Are bad translations going to damage the >Lojban-speaking >market for the product? Hardly. True. On the other hand, low quality Lojban permanently enshrined in a visible place might tend to set a standard for the language that we would regret. Just as Esperantists might not like to see a version in their language translated by someone who had only completed the 10 lesson postal course and who made up words for those he could not find in his dictionary. Unfortunately, even the best of us is not all that much better than postal course graduate in Lojban skill. I like at the lujvo that the TLI group is stuck with because of bad decisions by JCB. TLI has not baselined their language, but (so far as we know) their lexicon has been frozen in concrete in terms of bad tanru. (Of course we don't know this, since we don't have the dictionary, but I would be mildly surprised if "man-do" for "manning a ship" was changed. Certainly Lognet has never announced any paring or replacement of bad metaphors.) I like to see Lojban get used as much as possible, but I worry about bad Lojban somehow becoming a standard before we have large numbers who use good Lojban. But then it is my job to worry. lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org (newly updated!) To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com