[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bpfk-announce] Re: BPFK
On 12/20/06, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Matt Arnold wrote:
> 2. Definition Of "Active" (In This Context For My Purposes)
>
> I consider the ones I hear from _at all_ to be "active people in
> Lojban."
I am not sure if I understand you. Clearly, not everyone who is active in
Lojban has the necessary expertise to do BPFK work.
You're confused because I didn't provide context. Sorry, my bad. I said:
6. Seek replacements for the ones who went inactive or lost motivation.
Lojbab replied to me without CC'ing everyone:
Nobody is active, that I can tell.
So I replied:
I consider the ones I hear from _at all_ to be "active people in Lojban."
In other words, the BPFK Members engaged in this conversation right
now are only "inactive" in the sense that they're not doing BPFK work;
but the point of my reply was that I'll work with what I have, because
the BPFK Members Craig Daniel, Nick Nicholas, Charles Hope (xod),
Jordan de Long, and Rob Speer are "inactive" in the sense that they've
fallen off the face of the planet. At least I can nag the ones who are
still in the Lojban community.
Which sense of understanding do you mean? WordNet has two that seem
relevant:
1. understanding, apprehension, discernment, savvy -- (the cognitive
condition of someone who understands; "he has virtually no understanding
of social cause and effect")
3. sympathy, understanding -- (an inclination to support or be loyal to or
to agree with an opinion; "his sympathies were always with the underdog";
"I knew I could count on his understanding")
This is an important difference. For instance, I have a very good
understanding (1) of Jorge's motives and intentions, and vice versa, but
often we cannot come to an understanding (3).
Some BPFK members sometimes seem to get a RyanKeppelish level of
inscrutability from other members. Let's face it, this is a weird,
difficult and abstract topic of discussion. Acheivement of (1) should
be a prerequisite. However, my intent was to choose teammates with
whom one could come to an agreement, so that work can proceed.
I agree that the status quo should take precedence, and that dissenting
parties need to draft a counter-proposal, but otherwise I don't understand
what you're getting at.
The majority of the language is thoroughly uncontroversial. Nevertheless,
a BPFK section must be written on it, for use in the dictionary.
My proposal was for a method to sludge through controversial areas and
get out the other side without just steamrolling over one faction or
another. Keep in mind I had no idea when I wrote that what would be
controversial or how much controversy to expect. In an email today
Xorxes was very helpful when he said the possibly-controversial areas
would be "CAhA, TAhE, and perhaps something in FAhA and NU1.
Everything else (the great
majority) seems to require just grind work." I'm going to look up
those selma'o and find out what they are.
An existing language feature cannot be "considered its own proposal", because
that would amount to the BPFK saying that it shouldn't be in the dictionary.
The example I was thinking of was if we were to encounter another
issue like the dot side and the la rule. The current pre-revision
description of the status-quo rules about that is well formed and
coherent as it stands, isn't it?
-Eppcott