From sentto-44114-17253-1038516188-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Thu Nov 28 12:43:46 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 28 Nov 2002 12:43:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from n21.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.77]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18HVVf-0000vG-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 12:43:43 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-17253-1038516188-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.96] by n21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Nov 2002 20:43:08 -0000 X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 28 Nov 2002 20:43:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 85760 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2002 20:43:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Nov 2002 20:43:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Nov 2002 20:43:07 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id D09C63C6C4; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 15:43:05 -0500 (EST) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021127163350.036c0b80@pop.east.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021128140213.031df040@pop.east.cox.net> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128140213.031df040@pop.east.cox.net> X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com Message-Id: <02112815425908.02982@neofelis> From: Pierre Abbat MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 15:42:59 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Re: [llg-members] Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-archive-position: 2740 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Thursday 28 November 2002 14:08, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > All three of these are changes to the baseline, not clarifications, and are > not part of the cmavo definition effort. I doubt that they will get much > consideration therefore; usages by a single person are not sufficient to > decide an issue. There will be a procedure for making such proposals, > however. The procedures will be determined by Nick and the byfy. When were rafsi fu'ivla made part of the baseline? They are listed in the refgram as an experimental proposal. Can you point me to the criteria that make {srutio}, {letcue}, and (I remembered the other one) {damskrima} invalid? As far as I can tell from the specification in the refgram, they are valid. phma ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> ˇFREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/