On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Pierre Abbat
<phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
On Thursday 08 April 2010 21:47:09 Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> One place where we differ is that I no longer think usage should
> decide *ever*. Unless the BPFK becomes totally controlled by a pack
> of drooling morons, of course usage will be acknowledged and
> respected, and the BPFK may *choose* to promote usage to the status
> of officialness, but we should not let the language drift via usage.
> It should be well specified.
What will happen once there is a critical mass of verclijbo?
> I also don't think that describing the lanugage is what we
> should be doing. We should be *declaring* the language.
Does this include declaring the meaning of lujvo and fu'ivla?
I expect that lujvo and fu'ivla are exempt from this, except in cases of mass usage. For example, if ro jbopre use gerzda to mean "dog house", then it is possible that that meaning will be declared.
> I disagree. You can have a large, popular language without it being
> subject to random, unfettered linguistic; see, for example, French.
Twenty years ago the AF declared an orthographic reform. (The way I found out
about it was seeing the word "cigüe" (hemlock (umbellifer), new spelling) in
Wiktionary.) Some parts of the reform I agree with ("ciguë" looks strange
with the dieresis on the silent letter), some I don't ("coût" (cost) should
retain the circumflex because it represents a lost "s"). Can we have some
Lojbanists accepting some, but not all, of the rulings of the BPFK?
Pierre
--
Don't buy a French car in Holland. It may be a citroen.