Re: The Mad Proposals

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

JL> la lojbab cusku di'e
JL>
JL> >  For changes like
JL> > the Mad Proposals, I suspect this would cause major examination of the
JL> > existingf language description because the connectives are so strongly
JL> > findamental to the language as it is designed and has been actually used.
JL> > A simple global search-and-replace will not do.
JL>
JL> As far as Lojban text is concerned, a simple search-and-replace will
JL> suffice. All proposals involve a simple replacement of one word for
JL> another. (The single most common change would be {gi'e} to {gije}.)

Yes and no. "zo gi'e" if in Lojban text would become invalid.

There might be changes to elidable terminators needed in a text.

There could be stylistic factors, including rhyme or rhythm in poetry.

In short, you would have to verify on a case by case basis, although what
you say may be true for the most part.

JL> As for the reference grammar papers, the connectives paper would be
JL> greatly affected, and this is where most of the work involved would be.
JL> The other papers may need very minor changes, mostly of the
JL> search-and-replace --More--
JL> type.
JL>
JL> I haven't looked at the lessons lately, so I don't know how much updating
JL> they would need. I will try to make an assessment in terms of megabytes.
JL> :)


I don't know about John, but I am a holistic writer.  Changing a feature of
the language may change how I choose to teach it or refer to it in text,
including text that may only indirectly involve the feature in question.
Open questions in the grammar have tended to stop me dead in ALL work on the
language until resolved, not just forced me into working on a different
section.

lojbab