[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [lojban] Re: tu'o (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a
At 11:16 PM 8/6/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
(I'm assuming that the Refgram is more set in stone than the English
glosses-cum-definitions of cmavo.)
No. They are equally set in stone. In case of contradiction, the
dictionary will have the opportunity to remedy the situation under the
"correction of error" exception to the baseline.
Thus someone could legitimately accumulate contradictions in the refgrammar
and amongst the various baseline documents, seeking that they be resolved
where possible in the dictionary (or textbook) where appropriate, but for
the most part we are not considering any substantive corrections to the
cmavo (as opposed to the typo that Jorge discovered a couple weeks ago in
the definition of gi) prior to the next baseline-defining book.
A mechanism for doing this was discussed briefly at LogFest, but at the
moment I think I/we have too much on our plates with Nick's books to focus
on the desired methods to support this mechanism. I'll go into it more
when I have the leisure to think things out better.
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