>
> 3) For countries/territories: develop fu'ivla for the member
> states of the UN, along with other "important" areas (importance
> being based on an as-yet undetermined criterion).
>
> 4) For languages: develop fu'ivla based on the ISO code for the
> languages present in the 639-1 set of codes, but using their
> code as of the 639-3 revision. (I think it would be cool to use
> the language family codes, as presented here
> (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639-2#Collective_language_codes),
> when filling out the fu'ivla.)
>
> 5) For religions: develop gismu that cover the world's major
> religions (probably with some artificial cut-off for number of
> adherents), (along with another couple gismu for "atheist" and
> something like "native beliefs/practices of x2"?)
>
> 6) For land masses: develop fu'ivla for either the seven
> continents as conventionally understood, or else for the major
> tectonic plates (which largely correlates with the continents,
> but leads to a bit more precision with a few more fu'ivla). If
> we did go the plate route, we'd have to again have some sort of
> artificial cut-off TBD.
>
> Hopefully that summary accurately represents the discussion thus
> far.
>
> Since it seems like this project has stagnated in the past,
>
>
> It has not stagnated. It has been rejected. It will continue to be
> rejected.
>
> The gismu are baselined. The baseline isn't going to be changed
> because someone doesn't like something or thinks it could have been
> done better. We are more than 15 years past the point where people
> were willing to even consider changing the list.
>
> We officially and expressly DON'T want the language redesigned by
> fiat, in whole or in part. This isn't supposed to be a language
> design project any more, but a language-using project. (Bearing in
> mind that the byfy work defining the cmavo has never been completed,
> but there is a strong bias even there against change).
>
> The goal is to turn the baselined language over to users, who will
> *use* the language, which will then evolve according to actual
> usage. There will cease to be a language prescription, in favor of
> language description.
>
> If people need a gismu that doesn't exist, they can of course invent
> one ad hoc, though the intent is that they invent fu'ivla, and only
> a demonstrably useful fu'ivla would ever be made into a gismu (there
> is provision that assigning gismu might be done officially at some
> future point, but only after seeing a pattern of actual usage).
>
> Fu'ivla space is up for grabs, and people can choose to
> systematically create fu'ivla. If you limit your project to that, I
> certainly won't fight it (but I don't promise to ever support it
> either).
>
>
> > But,
>
> before I do any of that, I'd like to make sure that a) people
> seem generally of the opinion that some change like this is
> probably a good idea,
>
>
> 20 years ago, it might have been. Not now.
>
> My apologies if this comes across as rude, but I don't know how to
> put it any more politely. The question has been repeatedly debated,
> and even though there have always been people VERY unhappy with the
> cultural gismu, whatever may be wrong with them is not important
> enough to change LLG's fundamental philosophy about the language
> ("strong baseline" and "let usage decide").
>
>
> I do not find it particularly rude, and am happy that I can think about
> this as it would be a waste of time. Am I missing some part of the site
> that would have let me know that this idea has already been proposed and
> rejected over and over? Everything I have seen there makes it look like
> it is something that has been, and still is, ongoing.
>
> I must say I find the disconnect between the claims of cultural neutral
> and violation of those claims in the very vocabulary of the language to
> be completely weird. Illogical, even.
>