[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Is there any demand for LoCCan3?
gleki wrote:
I got your point. Thanks.
But xorxes's ideas looked like an addition to the language or like
alternative realisations, not necessarily breaking the baseline.
Any changes including additions to the grammar, cmavo, or gismu, would
"break the baseline", though additions are not as potentially difficult
as changes or deletions, which is why we made provision for experimental
cmavo. lujvo and fu'ivla are not baselined, so the expected change in
the language would be growth in those two categories.
If English is any standard, we probably need a lexicon in excess of
20,000 words before the language starts suffering from redundancy enough
to think about "deletion".
Formally, a baseline means that there are no changes at all for a period
of time, and any proposals are fully documented before being considered
for approval (which would mean change-pages for CLL and other standard
materials, as well as a documented summary discussion of the pros and
cons for the change).
May be we can reconsider his ideas trying to find other better ways
within the baseline to remove the need in learning many cmavo (therefore
marking existing connectives as obsolete but still valid), using only
existing rules and therefore making learning spoken lojban a bit easier
for nintadni ?
I see no problem with teaching a subset of the language to nintadni.
Indeed, I rather doubt that most people need to learn MEX, even if it
isn't "obsolete", and other parts of the language (term-sets) are of
minor importance in current usage. Of course, in future, things not
used much now may become a large importance. The idea was to provide
tools for growth so as not to constrain the possibilities, while also
STRONGLY avoiding the tendency of artificial language aficionados to
"redesign" things which has killed the vast majority of projects that
ever got far enough to see real usage.
I haven't objected to any use of experimental cmavo, though I myself
don't try to read text with experimental cmavo, since I don't keep track
of what has been proposed (and I have never been any good at using the
wiki to get info, much less contributing to it). But my own
proclivities in reading or usage are probably irrelevant, since I
contribute so little in those arenas these days.
But I really want to see the language as it is well-documented and
used-as-documented for a substantial period before I support further
fiddling with the language definition. My long-standing policy was a 5
year period, and then Lojban-only discussions of any proposed changes,
though I am not sure how much support there is for those concepts, and
the decision will not be up to me.
lojbab
--
Bob LeChevalier lojbab@lojban.org www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.