On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Ian Johnson
<blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
On IRC we were observing that common usage of {va'o} is not really consistent with its definition as a BAI associated with {vanbi}. Instead, it winds up being used like a nonlogical "if", that is one with causation implied in some way. We then went into some ideas about how one might correct this to make things regular again--redefine va'o, use another gismu to tie to va'o, bring in a new cmavo to mean what va'o is supposed to mean, etc.
And then I realized that this is "regularization"--taking a regular language that has evolved with usage slightly, but not a whole lot, and attempting to take the new, evolved language and make it regular again. Is there a policy or something on this subject? That is, is it official that Lojban is free to go as it pleases?
mu'o mi'e .latros.
Not at this point, no. Lojban is now, and will likely remain for a long time, a proscribed language.Any proposed modification of the language must be approved by the BPFK in order to be part of the language. The xorlo proposal is an excellent example of this.