From jcowan@reutershealth.com Sat Oct 05 13:05:47 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 5 Oct 2002 20:05:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 32898 invoked from network); 5 Oct 2002 20:05:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Oct 2002 20:05:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.reutershealth.com) (65.246.141.151) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Oct 2002 20:05:46 -0000 Received: from skunk.reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@[10.65.117.21]) by mail2.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA03105; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 16:16:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200210052016.QAA03105@mail2.reutershealth.com> Received: by skunk.reutershealth.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 5 Oct 2002 16:04:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism To: lojbab@lojban.org (Robert LeChevalier) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 16:04:34 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com (lojban) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021005154636.0324bec0@pop.east.cox.net> from "Robert LeChevalier" at Oct 05, 2002 03:54:59 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=8122456 X-Yahoo-Profile: john_w_cowan X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 16421 Robert LeChevalier scripsit: > The advantage I see to the Elephant is that it records each issue in a > structured manner so someone can come along later and see whether anything > was resolved. (Now maybe my concept of the elephant is not everyone > else's, but that is what I would use it for). That is indeed what it was intended for. Not only can you find out *what* was decided, but what the alternatives considered were, and what the arguments pro and con each alternative were. Just as important, you can ignore whatever parts of this you wish. > That sounds like an informal version of the Elephant. But I would suggest > abiding by our non-standard distinction between "grammar" and > "semantics". Any discussion of semantics is not a "grammatical issue" - > the Lojban grammar is baselined and frozen and semantics discussions do not > affect that baseline. Some semantic distinctions are also frozen (you and I had this discussion a decade or more ago): the distinction between "mi" and "do", or between "pa" and "re", is semantic (it does not affect the YACC or BNF) but is quite frozen. -- Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x) Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! -- Joyce, _Ulysses_, "Oxen of the Sun" jcowan@reutershealth.com