[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [lojban] Re: zo xruti xruti
At 10:18 PM 8/9/02 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> A formal change to the baseline for something "broken" strikes me as
better
> than having two different place structures documented in the list for any
> language version. In that I go beyond agreeing with xod.
This seems a bad idea to me, if we define "broken" not as "doesn't work"
but instead as "doesn't work as well as some hypothetical alternative",
then the language is reopened to debates about its design & I would
feel compelled to get involved again.
We couldn't have that now %^)
Seriously, I suspect that only things that "don't work" will get through
the filter to the point of serious change consideration, but documenting
other gripes in a standard way is a good idea anyway, and one possible
solution that can be described is to use workaround A, B, or C.
But I feel that a situation where usage is at such deviation with the
documentation that people would feel the *need* (and not merely the desire)
to document two different place structures in a wordlist or dictionary is
close to the threshold of "seriously broken" given the design
philosophy. Unlike the alternate orthographies, I don't think Lojban
presently has room for more than one place structure for words that is
official enough to be documented before the language documents change from
prescriptive to descriptive.
Furthermore, any change to the
baseline on the basis of such a controversial definition of brokenness
would alienate pro-baseline fanatics.
I'm as fanatic as they come. And I'm not saying that these changes WILL BE
made as changes, only that they reach the threshold where we would have to
consider them if they are written up, and that they are serious enough that
they should be written up.
Surely it would be much better that the baseline is accepted as de facto
permanent, but that the dictionary and textbook and other reference
materials take into account usage?
Since the dictionary and the textbook and the other reference works DEFINE
the baseline during this period, to say that they take into account usage
means that the baseline is being changed to reflect usage.
After all, the prevailing view in
the Lojban community is that the language is to be defined not by
the baselined materials but by actual usage, though the baselined
materials are not redundant, because they serve to guide and constrain
and direct usage.
That will be the likely philosophy AFTER the baseline period ends. But the
official books ARE the baseline. (One reason we weasel about what to call
Nick's book is that it is NOT considered the "official baseline
textbook". The difference between official and non-official there has been
treated somewhat differently than the official/non-official projects
concept, which is probably why I was so resistant to changing the concept
of "official". Nick's books are being officially published, but are not
official baseline documents, which is a little scary if/when it turns out
that there are some differences between what he has written and the
official baseline.)
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