Re: [lojban] Re: Baseline statement

[Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>]

At 07:28 PM 12/6/02 +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
>     Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 20:48:30 -0500
>     From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
>Subject: Re: Baseline statement
>
>Pointing out that getting special meetings to happen is difficult is
>not part of the solution, it's part of the precipitate. If this means
>the next members meeting needs to rejig the bylaws, well then, it'll
>rejig the bylaws. As has been promised to happen for the past decade.

The fact that it hasn't happened, regardless of promises, shows the 
problem.  I've stopped counting on the chickens to hatch in making plans.

The bottom line is that the organization was structured on the assumption 
that special member's meetings would NOT happen unless in 
emergencies.  Furthermore, it is bad enough that we disenfranchise the 
non-Internet people as much as we do, by making key decisions on the 
Internet without communicating with them.

>I think the notion that a Loglan transliteration (described as
>'oddball' in CLL!) constrains Lojban phonotactics is ludicrous.

The fact that something in CLL constrains Lojban phonotactics is not.

>Saying that anything oddball mentioned in CLL is more authoritative
>than anything oddball not in CLL (for example, that we are obliged to
>follow Eric Raymond's Tengwar rather than elrond's) is not much less
>ludicrous.

The byfy can so decide.  But the baseline AS DECLARED, is on the book as a 
document of the language.  So what are we to do; leave it to each 
individual to decide what parts of the book would be sacred writ and which 
are not?  I didn't ask or intend that CLL become holy writ.  This evolved 
more or less out of the same thing that made rafsi revision so 
difficult:  if it is written down in any quasi-official document, it 
acquires quasi-standard authority.  CLL was originally intended to have 
baseline status over the grammar, and the dictionary would cover the 
semantics.  By a year later, the dictionary was constrained to not disagree 
with CLL.  These are the facts of life until/unless the byfy changes them.

>The comma is a phoneme in Loglan transliteration, which does much of
>the work of the Lojban apostrophe. Therefore, sruti'o and srutio are
>distinct in Lojban, and this is not annulled in the Loglan
>transliteration, which also renders them distinctly. Therefore the
>difference between the two remains legit.
>
>Goddammit. All this rigmarole because you misremembered the
>transliteration. For shame.

Actually I looked it up.  I didn't read it the way you do, and Nora read it 
the same way.  Though at first glance and half asleep, your interpretation 
also makes sense.

(I also admit to having a bias on fu'ivla against the attempt to stretch 
them into every possible corner of the available space.  I know that if I 
see "srutio", I'll tend to assume it a typo - possibly intentional - for 
"sruti'o"; blame it on And if you must.)

I feel no shame.  If I'm wrong technically, so be it.   I still don't like 
srutio.

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



To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/