Re: non-core translations

["araizen" <araizen@newmail.net>]

la xod. cusku di'e

> The concepts in the minds of the designers may have been clear but 
when
> they were transcribed into English, degradation occurred. Now those
> designers must be consulted when transcribing into a different 
language
> certain cases which degraded when going into English; The desired
> knowledge is the baselined gismu list, not their English 
representations,
> which are only lossy representations of the ideal forms. 
Clarification is
> just that, and distinct from any sort of baseline-threatening 
semantic
> drift.

Of course, that is all in order; however, I don't think that those 
clarifications and translations should be considered part of the 
baseline. Non-English translations aren't going to be part of the 
baseline anyway, and so a more precise definition in a different 
language when that is needed shouldn't be hindered by an imprecise 
baseline definition.

> However, inasmuch as the LLG did in fact have well-defined ideas in 
mind
> when writing the gismu list, and simply failed in some few cases to
> express themselves clearly, it behooves the LLG to correct these
> misunderstandings and let the community know which competing
> interpretation was intended.

But the corrections cannot be considered part of the baseline, if we 
want to say that the list of gismu sitting on lojban.org is 
baselined, and not the list of gismu in lojbab's head.

mu'o mi'e .adam.