To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: BP & unintelligible cmavo (was: RE: Re: Why we should cancel the vote or all vote NO (was RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 19:16:38 -0000
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMAENKGPAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMOEMMGPAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
Importance: Normal
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
Content-Length: 1283
Lines: 32

I wrote:
> Nick:
[...]
> > And: Unintelligible cmavo
> >
> > We will go with the supplicatory model before we decide we don't know
> > what a cmavo is. The current statement of the baseline does not allow
> > cmavo deletion, because all cmavo are documented in CLL, one way or
> > another. To erase cmavo would be a major techfix, and I am opposed to
> > such ventures on principle
>
> In my experience, the supplicatory model doesn't really work, because
> -- to put it hyperbolically -- we end up with Lojbab's half-baked
> understanding or recollection of what something meant 20 years ago
> in Loglan or what a gang of now-invisible and uninterrogable
> Lojbanists came up with 15 years ago
>
> I agree that deleting these cmavo is quite a radical step, but it is
> also a refreshingly honest one

On further thought, there's a good case here for *not* defining or
abolishing these cmavo & just leaving them to usage -- & omitting them
from the mini-dict or including them with the statement "no established
meaning". That is, if jboskology can't see any natural candidate meanings, why
not just hand them over to the naturalists? That would be quite
interesting, in that we could see how naturalism would operate without
interference from prescriptivists.

--And.