From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sun Sep 14 11:12:41 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.113]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ybMN-0007f0-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:12:31 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-67-100.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.67.100]) by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B5343CF1B for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:11:57 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <00bf01c37aeb$adf629c0$a84279d5@oemcomputer> From: "And Rosta" To: References: <3ba1a5fa.a5fa3ba1@imap.epfl.ch> Subject: [lojban] Re: Text for beginners - chrestomathy part 1 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 17:38:23 +0100 Organization: Livagian Consulate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 6163 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Greg: > > What is the relationship between Chrestomathy and BF? > > > > Will Chrestomathy usage constrain BF? > > Or will the Chrestomathy be revised to conform to BF prescription? > > Or will the two be entirely independent, with Chrestomathy written in > > pre-BF Lojban, but BF not required to make Chrestomathy usage licit? > > The way I see it, the chrestomathy will strive to conform to BF > prescription. Any bad usage will be explicitely noted and excused on > account of our not knowing better. Will not be changed: Gadri used to > identify NU, unless clearly needed (and unspecified other gadri - and > unspecified other stuff). Will be changed when possible: bad use of CAhA > and any other considerations the BF would care to share. > > The chrestomathy hopes to be a benchmark of good lojban - It *will* > parse according to jbofihe. I do not believe that past mistakes should > constrain the development of lojban's full potential. I intend to > include essais on usage vs correctness in such domains which have not > yet been fully understood - and may still contain errors in the final > version. > > What other areas should be checked over to conform to BF? I'm assuming that the C. will be ready in draft form well before the BF's recommendations are ready in draft form. It's impossible to say at this stage how substantial a gap there'll be between the current prescription and the BF recommendation. My sense is that if the BF completes its mission (-- a big If), the gap will be quite large. I asked the original question, then, partly because of the above, and partly because the more canonical usage there is to constrain the BF, the harder the BF's job is (-- because it's like trying to build foundations under a house that has already been built without foundations). From my perspective, the happiest outcome would be if the C. were revised once the BF publishes its recommendations. --And.