From xod@thestonecutters.net Mon Aug 05 10:26:35 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 5 Aug 2002 17:26:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 9020 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2002 17:26:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Aug 2002 17:26:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Aug 2002 17:26:34 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17blco-0002n6-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 05 Aug 2002 10:26:34 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17blc8-0002mo-00; Mon, 05 Aug 2002 10:25:52 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 05 Aug 2002 10:25:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17blc3-0002mf-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2002 10:25:47 -0700 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g75HPk189854 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:25:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:25:46 -0400 (EDT) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: non-core translations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020805131735.D88901-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 437 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Invent Yourself Reply-To: xod@thestonecutters.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, araizen wrote: > la xod. cusku di'e > > > The concepts in the minds of the designers may have been clear but > when > > they were transcribed into English, degradation occurred. Now those > > designers must be consulted when transcribing into a different > language > > certain cases which degraded when going into English; The desired > > knowledge is the baselined gismu list, not their English > representations, > > which are only lossy representations of the ideal forms. > Clarification is > > just that, and distinct from any sort of baseline-threatening > semantic > > drift. > > Of course, that is all in order; however, I don't think that those > clarifications and translations should be considered part of the > baseline. Non-English translations aren't going to be part of the > baseline anyway, and so a more precise definition in a different > language when that is needed shouldn't be hindered by an imprecise > baseline definition. > > > However, inasmuch as the LLG did in fact have well-defined ideas in > mind > > when writing the gismu list, and simply failed in some few cases to > > express themselves clearly, it behooves the LLG to correct these > > misunderstandings and let the community know which competing > > interpretation was intended. > > But the corrections cannot be considered part of the baseline, if we > want to say that the list of gismu sitting on lojban.org is > baselined, and not the list of gismu in lojbab's head. Is it so? We could say that the baselined gismu are what the designers designed, and the gi'uste is an attempt at describing that. Then our conflicting notions converge upon a single ideal in each case, and certain interpretations are wrong, others are right. On the other hand, if we ignore the designers and consider the list itself to be the most faithful description of the gismu possible, then there is no way to adjudicate interpretation conflicts, and we are left with divergence. -- Nisha, 26, clutching an ice cream and her toddler son, read impassively through a leaflet calling for immediate dialogue with Pakistan to avert the horror of a nuclear war. "Why should we worry about this?" she said with a shrug. "India has more nuclear weapons than Pakistan. We will wipe them off the map and win the war."