[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: Revitalizing LLG: Suggestions for the 2014 annual meeting
On 8/19/2014 10:45 PM, Jacob Errington wrote:
On 19 August 2014 21:50, Spacenut <matthew@igregoire.com
<mailto:matthew@igregoire.com>> wrote:
I think the way people use certain things has changed slightly. For
instance, in lo mi jufra, when "lo me lo drata ku moi" was used, I
looked up "moi" in the CLL. My understanding is that it can now
attach to any sumti, meaning "something of a set related to <sumti>.
Just little stuff like that.
It's not that {moi} attaches to sumti; {moi} can attach to a preceding
{me}-clause.
The CLL *does* discuss this in the chapter on mekso, as a way to allow
mekso before a MOI, which is otherwise not possible:
https://lojban.github.io/cll/18/11/
This has since been generalized, at least in the case of {moi}, to allow
for arbitrary sumti in the preceing {me}-clause.
That generalization is documented in a BPFK section:
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Numeric+selbri
Ah... And that was exactly what we had in mind for much of the mekso
design that doesn't make sense - enabling conversions that otherwise
cannot be expressed. (Someone said that mekso wasn't well thought out.
I think it was very well thought out (maybe too well though out) but
far too poorly documented and explained. Cowan tried in CLL, but there
wasn't enough attempted usage at that point to make it evident what
wasn't clearly enough described.
You're right that the way people use things has changed though. Just
look at how we use {ka}-abstractions in IRC some day.
Someday, I'd like to go on IRC and see someone using the language at
all. Usually (and I don't try too often any more) I see several dozen
bots logged in perpetually and no one actually saying anything.
It's because of this divergeance between the CLL and usage that we need
some way to update the CLL, which is not possible until the publication
of CLL1.1.
My suggestion would be to have a section of the tiki that has proposed
rewrites of CLL sections that would reflect such actual usage. They are
what is really needed to evaluate the proposals anyway, and if the text
is written, then it is easy for Robin or whoever to apply the change
once it is approved. Just make sure that the section is marked as a
proposal based on a deviation in actual usage from the existing
specification, ideally including some actual corpus examples supporting
that it is actual usage.
It won't be part of CLL until after CLL1.1 is done, but at least the
documentation gets done.
lojbab
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.