Re: [lojban] Digest Number 1752

[Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>]

Eh, I either respond en masse or never:

>Message: 1
>    Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 12:48:27 +0100
>    From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: emotions
>
>Jordan:
>>  > cmavo is not a syntactic class, it is a morphological class
>>
>>  It is also a class of syntactic classes. 
>
>It doesn't strike me as a natural class of syntactic classes, since
>the only thing that those syntactic classes have in common is that
>they all have the morphological property of being expressed by
>cmavo.

... and that they are function words and not content words. Whose 
syntax may  be disparate, sure, but has in common that it is not the 
syntax of predicates.

>Message: 2
>    Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 12:48:50 +0100
>    From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: emotions
>
>Lojbab:
>>  At 03:32 AM 5/25/03 -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
>>  >On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 01:16:29PM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
>>  > > Why is it important that infrequently used jargon words have very short
>>  > > forms?
>>  >
>>  >(glances at lau, tei, and foi)
>>
>>  Content words.  Obviously in Lojban, cmavo will be shorter than any content
>>  word,

Oh, I don't think that makes lau/tei/foi defensible, because Zipf's 
law applies to function words too.

>Not in principle. There are CVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV cmavo, in principle.

True, although until we see trisyllabic cmavo routinely (which we may 
well do), that's only theoretical.

>  > (I'm
>>  surprised that there has seldom been criticism of re'a, which I myself
>>  thought was a questionable addition, deferring to people with more
>>  mathematical orientations.)
>
>It's disyllabic. There is no shortage of bisyllabic cmavo space.

Moreover, any objections (and there have been many) lambast the whole 
of MEX, and MEX cmavo have few defenders. Most prominently you, in 
fact; the only other I can think of who is on record as not minding 
them is Robin.CA. So re'a is a remarkably poor counterexample: deem 
all attacks on MEX to have included it by default.

>  > it is important that there be short ways to say acronyms even when they
>>  don't use Lojban-alphabet lerfu,
>
>Not so important that the need has manifested itself in usage yet...

Huzzah. And is right: acronyms are being dealt with differently 
anyway. Moreover, how many acronyms use obscure letters anyway? If I 
ever felt the need to introduce Greek acronyms into Lojban, rest 
assured they would be (a) cmene, and (b) piggy back off Lojban lerfu. 
Greeks normally read acronyms as words anyway, a la RADAR. (Which is 
why the CIA ends up as "sia" --- in a thread somewhere else, I think 
Jorge mentioned the same of Spanish.) But if I wanted to talk about 
the governing party or the communist party, it wouldn't be ge'o 
py.abu.sy.obu.ky. or ge'o ky.ky.ebu (let alone kapas.bu kapas.bu 
.epsilon.bu); it would be pasok. and kyky.ebu.

I really think this is trying to solve problems that don't exist.


>Message: 6
>    Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 14:13:14 -0000
>    From: "jjllambias2000" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
>Subject: Re: emotions
>
>
>la lojbab cusku di'e
>
>>  >In any case, the best way to oppose these words is to provide
>>  >good canonical alternatives, as Nick said.
>>
>>  Nora suggested that no noncanonical word should be allowed to be
>added to
>>  the jbovlaste UNLESS a canonical (perhaps longer) alternative has
>already
>>  been added.

This depends on whether jbovlaste is to produce a baseline dictionary 
or not. I still think the answer is "not", and that flagging 
experimentals is adequate. If exptal gismu are evil for ideological 
reasons, the lack of a canonical alternative makes them no less evil.

>That seems to put the onus on the wrong party. If I wanted
>{parji} to be adopted then I'd be tempted to enter an unappealing
>canonical alternative so that it won't really compete with my
>proposal.

I would not expect the fundie form and the revisionist form to be 
posted by the same person; that's just schizo. I would expect the 
revisionist to exhaust baseline possibilities before suggesting a 
revisionist form, as a courtesy to the baseline; but that cannot be 
policed in practice. So fundies as a group have to be vigilant, 
rather than expect revisionists to do their work for them.

>Adding {brodr-} to a gismu form will always result in a valid
>fu'ivla. So an automatic way of canonizing experimental gismu
>would be to prefix them with brodr-, as in {brodrparji}.

This is true. The issue then boils down to which is the preferred 
fu'ivla;  and you know I'd rather vote for danlrparasito than 
brodrparji. :-)

>Message: 7
>    Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 10:30:36 -0400
>    From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
>Subject: RE: Re: emotions
>
>I first note in answer to Nick that the concept of "usage will decide" was
>intended to apply to selection among multiple options built into the
>language.  This concept has unfortunately been extended to inventing
>non-baseline solutions and hoping that they catch on enough to force a
>change in the baseline.

Bob, you can't control memes like that, and you look silly trying. If 
you couch "Usage Will Decide" in the language of anti-prescriptivism 
and natural evolution (which  you have been doing), you should not be 
surprised if people take you at your word. And as I never tire of 
saying, "Natural Evolution" just doesn't work like that for conlangs; 
they are intrinsically too fragile and fissiparous.

There shall be a standard in the baseline, and the standard shall 
remain in place, as a standard --- howsoever it corresponds to what 
Lojbanists do in practice. What organicists do on their own dime is 
no different from what formalists do on their own time: if it's 
outside the standard, it's their responsibility,  and they can do 
what they please and reap the consequences as they fall out. To bid 
them wait 10 years until they do what they please is silly, and I 
will not join in such futility. I advocate the standard as a 
standard, and I will discourage and combat movement outside it: just 
as they are free to be non-canonical, so too am I free to militate 
against them. But I will not do so by a bait and switch of "wait 10 
years" or "wait till the language matures", but simply by advocating 
the virtues of a common standard that And has cogently presented.

>  >Furthermore, the value of a baseline (as opposed to
>>frozenness) is that it provides some sort of shared explicit
>>reference standard. If jbovlaste were used as such, then an
>>experimental gismu listed in jbovlaste would be more part of
>>the baseline than a lujvo that is not listed.
>
>Indeed.  And it is obvious that jbovlaste will become such a reference
>standard whether it is approved as a "baseline" or not.

So what would you have jbovlaste do? Ban all mention of exptal gismu? 
But they exist, and people have proposed them; are we to pretend that 
hasn't happened? No: what we are to do, if the BPFK reaffirms that 
they don't belong in the baselined language, is exclude them from the 
baseline dictionary. *Which is not jbovlaste*.

jbovlaste is not an out of control monster careening down a hillside. 
jbovlaste is a record of what people have proposed; as such, it is 
descriptive, and as source material, it is not beholden to any 
baseline. But it can be steered by the community. If fundamentalists 
don't like revisionist forms, let them put their money where their 
mouth is: let them vote,  and let them counterpropose. But I'm not 
using my offices to stomp on jbovlaste: jbovlaste is flagging 
non-canonical stuff, so it's doing the right thing. My offices get 
used in a BPFK-produced dictionary, and that is a different animal 
from jbovlaste --- although obviously it will use jbovlaste as a base.

And that dictionary becomes in my book the reference standard, 
because that's what is expected of the baseline. That work, I will 
attempt to steer towards baseline compliance. jbovlaste, I'm keeping 
my hands off.

>Message: 9
>    Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 10:46:12 -0400
>    From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
>Subject: Re: emotions
>
>At 12:48 PM 5/26/03 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
>>It's disyllabic. There is no shortage of bisyllabic cmavo space.
>
>What is this big need for monosyllabic cmavo, except perhaps for the REALLY
>frequent and fundamental words of the language like the logical connectives?

That we may unearth further fundamental  words, and there are no free 
monosyllables to allocate if we do. Come, Bob, you've already 
conceded there's a case to be made for deallocating LAU,  as long as 
it's done through the right channels; why are you protesting this? 
You have made and continue to make so much of Zipf; why are you 
surprised when people take you at your word, and think your decision 
to give monosyllables to lau/tei/foi wrong?

>Message: 11
>    Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 17:06:47 +0200
>    From: "Gregory Dyke" <lojban-out@lojban.org>
>Subject: Re: Parasite
>
>cu'u la bab
>
>>  >"parasite" is _gisaengcung_, "dependent-organic-worm". ({c} is
>>  >pronounced /ch/ as in church) Indispensable Unicode:
>>  >U+5BC4 U+751F U+87F2.
>
>>  >
>  > >So, {tcuji'e} means "x1 is parasitic". For "parasitic worm",
>>  >use {tcuji'e curnu}.
>>
>>  I love it!  Someone add it to jbovlaste, please!!  (And if there is a way
>>  to note the Korean connection in jbovlaste, it seems worth doing so).
>
>I find your enthusiasm terrifying. Without any disrespect intended to
>sanxiyn or to the korean who coined _gisaengcung_, this is a poor
>representation of my idea of a parasite. Why limit this this to the organic
>(let alone the living, as the lojban does)?. Also, based upon the underlying
>tanru, I am a parasite, because {mi nitcu lemi rirni}

I find the enthusiasm ill-motivated myself (especially when someone 
else has to enter the word in :-) ), but literal parasitism is a 
property of organisms, and inorganic parasitism is merely dependance. 
Saying something is a dependent organism is an appropriate way of 
rendering "parasite" when used to refer to organisms.

In some senses, you are parasitic off your parents (the Greek 
literally means "feed next to" --- not even "feed off".) But we would 
understand the lujvo as referring to an organism that is innately 
parasitic, that cannot grow out of being parasitic. In the worse 
case, use TAhE.

>If you argue that the negative connotation (which is what I don't enjoy
>about being called a parasite) shouldn't transfer over to Lojban, then we
>are left with the fact that parasite = nitcu. And I'll not have malnitcu
>defined as parasite + negative connotation, as it already means (to my mind)
>"addicted"

malnitcu merely means derogatory need; let's not pass verdict on 
whether it means addiction or parasitism. The difference between 
addiction and parasitism is that the 'host' is a substance for 
addiction, but an organism for parasitism.

You're right, too: the negative connotation is the concern of the 
source languages, and is irrelevant to Lojban lujvo.

>I'd define parasitic as "uni-lateral dependancy", (by which I mean that the
>parasitic organism doesn't give anything back to the host). Someone with
>more motivation than me can work out the lujvo for that... (you can then
>also add a zdani to that if you want symbiotic parasites)

The addict gives nothing back to the heroin, either. Your tanru is 
nalsimxu lacri, though I don't think it is specific enough.

cidja fatri sarcu jmive
jmive jibni sarcu renvi jmive
jmive jibni lacri renvi jmive

Do I hear an advance?

>I think the whole idea of finding out how other languages does stuff is
>absolute bullshit. Experienced lojbanists know more about combining their
>own concepts to say what they mean than any other language does about
>combining their own words to creat new ones. Just imagine if we started
>using some of the ridiculous computer terms that some natlangs have come up
>with: "Browser", "butineur" for instance...

Greg, you are a superstar. Thank you.

>Message: 12
>    Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 11:08:36 -0400
>    From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
>Subject: Re: RE: Re: emotions
>
>  >And with all respect to jbovlaste, I don't see anyone expecting that
>>the entirety of its contents will ever constitute a baseline
>>(especially if it is to be issued in the next three years).
>
>It is not that it will constitute a baseline, but rather that it will be
>USED as the reference standard for the language "because it is there".  (As
>you noted, the official dictionary is not there - even though it isn't
>"vaporware", but merely draft - but then so is jbovlaste.)

The solution to the issue of needing a baseline dictionary available 
to be used is... to make a baseline dictionary. Which is one of the 
things the BPFK will do. And it will be based on jbovlaste, your 
draft, and whatever other materials are available.

>Thus I note that jbofi'e seems to have displaced the official parser, and
>the E-BNF which was the unofficial  grammar standard displaced the YACC in
>usage to the point that it was added to CLL and hence made part of the
>baseline, and now people find "errors" in the language based on jbofi'e and
>the E-BNF.

This is going to be an issue for the BPFK anyway, but the LLG wanted 
to advocate the supremacy of the YACC grammar, it should have gotten 
the parser out of DOS and onto online lookup. Or commissioned this. 
Curnow stepped into the breach; I will not condemn him for acting 
where the LLG did not.

(In my book, the sensible strategy is to switch to EBNF anyway, 
'cause it's not like YACC is readable: even you had to resort to EBNF 
to explain the distribution of NAI to Craig on phpbb. But that too is 
a debate for another forum.)

>Because users can freely add to it WITHOUT any vetting on their additions,
>people will add to jbovlaste.  And because it is readily available for word
>lookup, those who live on the net will USE jbovlaste.  Thus it stands to
>overwhelm any and all baseline standards by its mere existence, if it
>permits non-baseline-standard entry/display on equal terms with
>baseline-standard work.

But it muthaf-ing doesn't treat them as equals. It flags exptal words 
as such. And if it is so drastically urgent that exptals be flagged 
on lookup, then spend less time flaming it here, and more time 
logging feature requests.

What you're asking is that jbovlaste ban exptals from data entry; 
that is not being descriptive of the language, and is likely to 
backfire.

>(And I realize your criticism that I should be adding standard words to
>compete with the nonstandard ones.

Bob, I've long ago given up expecting any language work of you. When 
I say "you", I am addressing fundamentalists in general.

>  >Gismu and
>>camvo are baselined. I really don't see the point in a large set of
>>lujvo or fu'ivla being in a baseline. In a reference dictionary, sure.
>
>Which jbovlaste, unedited, will be.

Who on earth said there wouldn't be a baselined, edited version? Who 
said there wouldn't be votes on jbovlaste, that the entire community 
is free to take part in?

>  >(This counters Bob's vision of the dictionary.
>
>Not sure what you think my vision is.  But your vision as presented is not
>that unlike mine.  I just recognize what the user-community and the world
>think about dictionaries supersedes what the linguists think about them.

Do we have a baseline or don't we? Are we allowed to tell users their 
usage is not baseline conformant or aren't we? Do we assume users can 
read enough to tell the difference between canon and experimental 
proposal or don't we?

I repeat: if users don't bother to read the fine print of the 
dictionary, let them wear the consequences in their Lojban-language 
interactions. LOJBAN IS NOT EASY. FFS.

>  >  But then, Bob has his vision, and I have mine. And I continue to think
>>  his vision naive.)
>
>My argument on this issue is based on the fact that I KNOW my ideal for the
>dictionary is naive when jbovlaste is a reality.  And I don't have time (or
>web-programming knowhow) to come up with my own alternative, so I am stuck
>with complaining, and hoping I can stimulate others into acting as needed.

"complaining, and hoping I can stimulate others".

*sigh* I'm dropping this, it's profitless. You sure ain't stimulating me.

>Message: 16
>    Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 07:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
>    From: Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
>Subject: Re: emotions
>
>
>la lojbab cusku di'e
>>  > > >In any case, the best way to oppose these words is to provide
>>  > > >good canonical alternatives, as Nick said.
>>  > >
>>  > > Nora suggested that no noncanonical word should be allowed to be
>>  >added to
>>  > > the jbovlaste UNLESS a canonical (perhaps longer) alternative has
>>  >already
>>  > > been added.
>>  >
>>  >That seems to put the onus on the wrong party. If I wanted
>>  >{parji} to be adopted then I'd be tempted to enter an unappealing
>>  >canonical alternative so that it won't really compete with my
>>  >proposal.
>>
>>  One would hope that people would abide by the spirit of the rule, and not
>>  play such games.
>
>Even if they disagree with the spirit of the rule? Why would
>you expect people to act against their convictions?

I wouldn't. I would hope any experimental proposal loses, and I would 
work too keep it out of any baseline-defining document, but you have 
the liberty to propose whatever you want. And as I said, it would be 
silly to force anyone advocating a revisionist view to also propose a 
fundamentalist option. Fundamentalism is the fundamentalists' job.

But to subvert the fundament by proposing unappealing canonical 
alternatives is labouring in bad faith, and I don't see how it can be 
defensible. Ends do not justify all means. Moreover, what you would 
be doing would be fairly transparent, and would do your cause 
irreperable damage.

This is a Gedanken exercise, to be sure, but let's not get carried away here.

Oh, and because I'll get time to respond to it elsewhere, I say 
unreservedly and for the record: even though I believe that Jorge's 
HumptyDumptyism causes Lojban damage in the Small Picture, in the Big 
Picture his pointing out of weaknesses and inconsistencies of the 
current baseline is indispensible to the language, and in the long 
run is crucial to the language realising its proclaimed goals. Jorge, 
we will continue to fight, but it is for the good; and thank you for 
holding your ground. (At least, until the BPFK has made its votes :-)

>Message: 17
>    Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 12:59:05 -0400 (EDT)
>    From: Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>
>Subject: Re: Parasite
>
>  > I find your enthusiasm terrifying. Without any disrespect intended to
>>  sanxiyn or to the korean who coined _gisaengcung_, this is a poor
>>  representation of my idea of a parasite. Why limit this this to the organic
>>  (let alone the living, as the lojban does)?. Also, based upon the underlying
>  > tanru, I am a parasite, because {mi nitcu lemi rirni}
>What do you mean, "underlying tanru"? A lujvo picks only one of the tanru
>meanings. Some other tanru meaning, under which you fear you fall, has no
>bearing on a lujvo.

Eeyup. That said, the first instinct is indeed to read the lujvo 
broadly rather than narrowly. But it's not a compelling argument.

>  > If you argue that the negative connotation (which is what I don't enjoy
>>  about being called a parasite) shouldn't transfer over to Lojban, then we
>>  are left with the fact that parasite = nitcu. And I'll not have malnitcu
>>  defined as parasite + negative connotation, as it already means (to my mind)
>  > "addicted"
>
>I don't see it in Nora's lujvo list.

Yeah; sorry, but "to my mind" doesn't cut it. We need more explicit 
arguments than that.

>I don't know what a "butineur" is, but you're probably referring to
>metaphors, which naturally, as a fine upstanding Lojbanist, you regard as
>Satanic. Regardless, tcuji'e hardly falls into that picturesque category;
>it is about as straightforward a rendering as can be imagined.

Gotta admit, I liked tcuji'e better than nalsimlacri. So though 
ideologically I agree with Greg, I'm with you on tcuji'e not being an 
instance of metaphoricism.


>Message: 22
>    Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 17:57:57 -0400
>    From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
>Subject: RE: Re: emotions
>
>Nora adds several arguments against ad hoc expansion of the gismu list by
>simple addition to jbovlaste, which I summarize.

I concur with these.

>Message: 23
>    Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 18:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
>    From: Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
>Subject: Re: emotions
>
>
>la lojbab cusku di'e
>
>>  1. every added gismu makes the goal of "learning the gismu list", a worthy
>>  goal for new Lojbanists, that much harder
>
>One can always settle for "learning the official gismu list". I would
>not recomend that as a goal, though. It is much easier, I think, to learn
>them as needed through usage.

Many do do it. I wouldn't, and there are several gismu I wish I 
hadn't learned,when I was doing logflash. (Remember a certain colour 
word, Robin.CA? :-) But there is a constituency out there doing it.

>  > 2. every added gismu makes the goal of learning rafsi (or deducing their
>>  meaning) that much harder.  Assume that parji is added even with no rafsi
>>  assigned.  Because it is there, then when you see rafsi paj, par, pai, or
>>  pa'i, or even pra, then this is one more gismu that they MIGHT be, and
>  > hence a little harder to learn.
>
>This is probably true, if you use that method of learning rafsi, but you
>are the only person I have heard saying they learn them that way. For me
>rafsi are the hardest things to learn in the language. Except for the
>few that are used very often, I have not learned very many yet, even after
>several years of not insignificant usage. For most gismu, I can't tell
>what their rafsi is, or even whether they have short rafsi.

But the two positions are not contradictory. If you refuse to 
memorise rafsi (I do too), then you have to guess them,  and adding 
gismu makes it even harder to guess them.

>  > 3. all of the gismu added, whether people agree they should be or not, went
>>  through a certain amount of debate before we even made a gismu for
>>  them.  The sheer necessity of looking up a word in 6 languages means that
>>  we had to consider the meaning carefully, so we'd know what to look up, and
>>  there were at least three of us involved in looking up words, so we
>>  therefore always debated  (and Tommy and I had MANY long debates, since he
>>  was a gismu minimalist - as few as possible).
>
>Well, it seems that lack of debate won't be a problem in this case.

True, true. :-) And you know, I'm not eager to embark on this, but 
new gismu can be brought to the BPFK for consideration,  just as old 
place structures can (though not as a priority.) But the case for 
them needs to be pretty damn good.

>  > 4. Once we got past the basic start of analyzing, weeding, and redoing the
>>  TLI Loglan list words, words were added only with a careful consideration
>>  of a)semantic completeness (e.g. of sets of food-grains), b) usability in
>>  lujvo to cover semantic space.  New words should have to be justified in
>>  terms of necessity AS GISMU.
>
>Even so, there were some gaps left. For example, one that came up
>recently on the list:
>
>tirna sance
>viska jvinu
>sumne panci
>pencu tengu
>????? vrusi

BPFK mantra: we are not here to optimise Lojban :-) . vrusyzga it remains...

>As for usability in lujvo, one that I've often missed is something
>correponding to Esperanto -inda, "deserving of".

mapti is kind of vague, but can be pressed into service, surely.

>  > Whether
>>  people think there is a lot of meaning to the 6-language word-making, it
>>  offers a couple of things: an objective way to decide the "best form",
>>  dissociation of the word from the keyword in any single source language, so
>>  that it is less likely to be encoded English (or whatever language).
>
>This goal was sort of defeated by the English keyword list. People
>learn the keywords to the point that they sometimes use the wrong
>place structure because of a misleading keyword.

Oh, missed the dissociation thing. Yeah, that is bulldust. The words 
are defined by the placestructure and definitions in the gismu list 
alone; the 6-language word thing might as well have produced random 
strings, and in no realistic sense has affected how we understand the 
words (expect as "false friends").

>And that's about the whole list, isn't it? It seems like you are making
>the issue seem far bigger than it really is. Even if all the experimental
>gismu from the wiki were transferred to jbovlaste, I don't think they are
>more than 50, and almost all of them are cultural words.

Cultural words being a distinct, and very messy issue.

>A few words like
>mango, pitsa or taksi have a special status in that they are international
>_and_ are already gismu-form without any need of adaptation. It is hard
>to resist those, since they don't even need a dictionary definition in order
>to be understood. I'm sure those will end up as part of the language in
>any case.

You underestimate the power of fundamentalism. :-)

>  > 6. (hard to explain) the list of existing gismu slants the choice of how
>>  one makes and interprets lujvo.  The semantics of the language is based on
>>  what has gone before.  Adding a new gismu to the coverage of semantic space
>>  changes the semantic map, and thus could change the color of meaning of
>>  other words in unexpected ways.
>
>Unexpected = bad ?

Yup. Language stability.

>I agree. Not only for gismu, but also for lujvo and fu'ivla. They should
>not be added willy-nilly and without due consideration. Especially so in
>the case of gismu forms.

So, we're in agreement. Which I should have realised. :-)

>  > 8. Finally, before there was a byfy, adding gismu to the original baseline
>>  list was consider fundamental enough that each one was put to a membership
>>  vote (at LogFest).  People were expected to make a case for their word and
>>  submit it for consideration by the members, and to abide by the
>>  result.  Hence I abided by the elimination of gumri.  The current method of
>>  putting words out there, and having them see usage without the debate,
>>  without the research, without the discussion, and without abiding by what
>>  was decided in the past, is disparaging of stability, tradition, and the
>>  opinions of members who put time and effort into the language in the past.
>
>The members will have to realize at some point that the language will
>belong more and more to the users than to the members.

Ah, I see you've been infected by the organicist meme too. ;-) While 
the LLG advocates a prescription for the language, that prescription 
is the business of the BPFK. When the prescription is lifted, we will 
go our separate ways; we're not there yet. But obviously even now you 
are right: the language belongs far more (as in, is influenced far 
more) to a user who happens not to be a member of the LLG than a 
member who doesn't use the languge. So an LLG membership vote on 
gismu is now silly, and that's why we have the BPFK.

That's enough fire dousing for one day...
-- 
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
* Dr Nick Nicholas,  French & Italian Studies       nickn@unimelb.edu.au *
   Rm 637 Arts Centre, Melbourne University, Australia    www.opoudjis.net
*    "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the       *
   circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson,
* _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987.    *
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA/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/