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 proper
> documentation, 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.
Ok
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.
True
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.
This change is already vetoed by me in llg members mattermost channel. It has poor wording as xorxes noted.
But in general the idea to allow superfluous y was from Cowan.