On 8/14/2019 8:12 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 15:08 Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org <mailto:lojbab@lojban.org>> wrote:On 8/7/2019 6:31 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > It is suggested to replace: > It is illegal to add a hyphen at a place that is not required by > this > algorithm. > with: > It is possible to optionally add an y-hyphen between the > consonants of any > permissible consonant pair e.g. for stylistic purposes or for > the ease of > pronunciation. > > > I don't have the full context, but I assume the "y" would be permitted > betwen the consonants of adjacent rafsi, and not between the consonants > of any consonant pair at all, otherwise the morphology gets broken ("to > smabru" cannot be pronounced "to symabru" for example). My opinion, for what it is worth (I don't have a veto), is that if this is an actual change to the morphology as it was defined fora couple of decades, then the fact that Jorge has to raise such questions means that the proposal was not specified completely enough to be properly debated, much less decided. Especially knowing that Jorge could read any recorded discussion/proposal in Lojban, unlike many of the rest of us (including Nora who did much of the later work and explication of morphology issues). I also don't recall any mention of this as a proposal approved by byfy, and reported to the members or the Board by the byfy jatna This proposal should not be incorporated into CLL without a properdocumentation, discussion and decision.What entity should discuss it?
In the absence of a byfy or equivalent/replacement, there is no entity other than the Board (or members during a meeting) that can or should approve ANY change to the language. That was the state before byfy, and again is the state until it is replaced.
But if course, if I am correct that it wasn't properly discussed, then it can and should wait for an organization to be properly constituted (I won't pretend to understand the convoluted mess that passed during the meeting, but I had the impression that said approved proposal would in face require formally documented proposals before they are decided).
Certainly this proposal is NOT merely the correction of an error in the original CLL, and if not formally approved. My understanding is that the update to CLL is not supposed to be changing anything that wasn't part of the original language (and erroneously described) or some language change proposal that was approved by byfy before it was disconstituted.
Remember that I personally don't support language changes *in general* unless they are fixing something broken, though I can only control my own vote, such as it is.
lojbab -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bpfk-list/99b607e0-27c6-7f13-8a32-1b498e18c0e6%40lojban.org.