From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Feb 24 12:04:19 2000 X-Digest-Num: 374 Message-ID: <44114.374.2077.959273826@eGroups.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:04:19 -0500 From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" Subject: Re: banli pu'u fanva X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2077 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!)