From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon May 26 01:50:26 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 16048 invoked from network); 26 May 2003 08:50:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 May 2003 08:50:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.114) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 May 2003 08:50:25 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-50.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.50]) by lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9819347E86 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 10:50:23 +0200 (MEST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: emotions Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 09:50:22 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <7FC7B245-8DD5-11D7-AC97-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 19878 Nick to Lojbab: > > I can't support a policy of "usage will decide" along with a > > policy that promotes non-baseline solutions as being equal to > > baseline-compliant solutions > > Well, you know what I think of your "usage will decide", and how it > inherently undermines any baseline.. Wholly without heat, I observe that I don't understand the either of you's rationale. We need a baseline (frozen or not) so that we are all (a) speaking the same language & (b) truly speaking a language (& not making it up as we go along, pidginwise). But the evidence of natural language is that vocabulary innovation is the most innocuous and useful variety of usage deciding. It's innocuous because there is scant room for misunderstanding (because if a word is novel, there is no competing prior definition for it) -- the risk of misunderstanding is much more pernicious than the risk of not understanding at all, and useful for obvious reasons. Furthermore, the value of a baseline (as opposed to frozenness) is that it provides some sort of shared explicit reference standard. If jbovlaste were used as such, then an experimental gismu listed in jbovlaste would be more part of the baseline than a lujvo that is not listed. And I don't see any problem with that. Anybody encountering {parji} will either know it or not understand it and look it up in jbovlaste, just as with any other gismu. --And.