At 08:21 PM 8/6/02 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
>la adam cusku di'e
> >In fact, how you describe the situation, all that is
> >really baselined is the list of actual gismu with their general
> >meaning as set by the keyword. Everything else could theoretically be
> >open to debate and change if a consensus is reached. I was under the
> >impression that the whole list was baselined and would be considered
> >the defining document for the dictionary.
>
>Good. That means that {xruti} can still be fixed, since it was
>agreed at one point to remove the agent place but it was never
>done. I think in Spanish I translated it as non-agentive.
Removing places would be a violation of the standards of the baseline as
conveyed to me when we started, and hence would require a higher degree of
consensus than I think is possible. If it was in fact agreed, and no
example in the CLL enshrines the current place structure, you would have a
stronger case than normal, but under the guidelines I've received, I am not
considering any such changes and will not do so on my own. We don't have a
Lojban academy, so you basically have to convince the whole community and
document the change.
If faced with some proposals of significance that need a decision and which
seem to plausibly have the necessary consensus, then The Board or the
voting membership will decide how to decide (depending on the circumstances
when it is needed). The last approved baseline change, that of the keyword
for mukti, was so long ago (1994) and was so contentious at the time, that
no one has contemplated another change of that degree.
In any event, having a different number of places in two different language
translations of the gismu and an agentive/nonagentive distinction
enshrined, strikes me as asking for trouble.
> >(the additional clarifications have not yet been
> >translated into Spanish, for example, though perhaps they didn't
> >exist when that translation was made)
>
>I think they did already exist, but there was enough in
>them I disagreed with that I couldn't bring myself to tranlate
>them. Also many of the comments only apply to English. Probably
>each language should have its own set of comments in that section.
I agree. One might consider the English clarifications when writing the
translation, but only use them if the same clarifications are needed in the
target language, and feel free to add others where a distinction is needed
in that language that is not present in English.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Will You Find True Love?
Will You Meet the One?
Free Love Reading by phone!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/it_ffB/R_ZEAA/Ey.GAA/GSaulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/