[lojban] Re: corrigible vlaste? RE: Re: I like chocolate

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Jay:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 02:48:54PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > Jay:
> > > The Wiki rejects all association with the LLG, and has never knowingly
> > > sought the approval of anyone.
> > >
> > > If I was trying to keep the Wiki somehow LLG-compliant, I wouldn't let
> > > And get away with his experimental cmavo silliness on the Wiki.
> > 
> > The experimental gismu are silly, but the experimental cmavo aren't.
> 
> Oh, so, experimental cmavo, which have never been used, aren't silly,
> but gismu like norgo and spero, which have even seen significant use,
> aren't? I suppose the criteria for non-silliness is your involvement?

I mean that what silliness there is is to be found among the experimental
gismu, many of which were proposed by me in a spirit of frivolity.

As you know, I think usage largely irrelevant. If you want a language
that is used a lot, you know where to find one -- English or any of
thousands of others. (Yes, I know that's a cheap rhetorical point;
I'm just making it because it's usually flung in the other direction.)

I don't deny that usage is marginally a guide to 'silliness' (=
uselessness) of cmavo, but it is only one guide among others, and on
its own is unreliable.

> > All the experimental cmavo suggested by me are serious.
> 
> You're serious when you suggest them, yes.

The case for them is serious. That is, if the distinction between
experimental vs, baselined is ignored, a number of my proposed
cmavo deserve to belong in the language more than very many cmavo 
that already exist in the language. And the notion of ignoring
the distinction between experimental and baselined may be anathema
to you, but it is not silly.
 
> > I think that if the Wiki were officially associated with the LLG
> > nothing about it would change.
> 
> If it was an official source of information, and I was running it,
> I can guarantee you it would change.

It's good, then, that you're running the Wiki and not the offical
sources of information. For my part, I would see the entire wiki
as an official source of information -- inter alia it reflects
most of the diversity of views found among the community.

--And.