On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 09:19:31PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/20/2002 2:23:20 PM Central Daylight Time,
> a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:
> <<
> > It's really the baseline that is ill-conceived. It is inevitable that
> > at the stage of development the language was at when it was baselined
> > it would be full of things awkward & ill-conceived.
> >>
> I suppose it was inevitable and the baseliners should have made some
> provision for it, but coming from a situation in which nothing was ever
> nailed down, but subject to change on (quite literally) a whim, they erred in
> the othre direction. And, for all that, the results have been pretty
> unchallenged over the years -- we don't have a count, alas, but I have less
> than a hundred headings in my vocab files, and many of those are not really
> serious changes but clarifications and other are [well, you know, like
> yours].
FWIW, as a relatively new lojbanist (~5 mo), my interest in lojban
would be nonexistant if weren't even as stable as it is now. It
is difficult to take a conlang seriously when changes happen
constantly, rendering much existing text incorrect. Obviously
clarifications, and fixing of mistakes (vo'a) are both neccesary
and good, so I support them. But redesign of the language every
few days is counter productive (assuming one cares at all about the
size of the speaker-base).
Baseline == good.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgp00087.pgp
Description: PGP signature