Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: non-core translations

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 11:48:48 -0400

At 09:52 AM 8/5/02 +0000, araizen wrote:
> realize that these are just clarifications and should not change
>the meaning, but I still have a problem with any changes other than
>correction of typos to the baseline list. There are words whose exact
>meaning is disputed, and adding clarification could change the
>interpretation. For example, there are those who say that 'botpi' is
>any closable container, whereas others say it's more like
>English 'bottle'. Adding clarification to 'botpi' could decide in
>favor of one of the interpretations.

I'm aware of that, and any changes I make are below that level. I can't 
call the corrections I make "typos", because they weren't in fact 
"errors". But these are differences well below the keyword change for 
mukti, which was the last baseline change that was made something like 8 
years ago.

>Also, there are now some translation project of the gismu list. I
>think it is important when translating to follow the English as much
>as the structure and semantics of the target languages will allow,
>since that is the baseline document. If clarifications are added to
>the baseline gismu list, translations made before then would become
>somewhat not up-to-date.

That is of course a problem. Probably the best bet would be for me to 
prepare a diff listing so people know what changes I have made. But I am 
pretty sure that nothing I have changed in my file is important enough that 
it would bother me if it wasn't translated.

I am not putting up each incremental change for debate as I make it because 
it would be time consuming and non productive. I'd rather put up the 
entire set, when I've

In fact, I'd leave the baseline file unchanged except for the fact that 
then we'll get questions about differences in wording between the 
dictionary gismu list and the baseline gismu list. When the dictionary is 
done and released for publication, it becomes one of the trio of final 
baseline documents, so the differences have to be made official at some point.

However, since there is question, I will post the diffs, and put it to the 
Board to explicitly approve the changes, when I have a set of definitive 
diff listings. The last thing I want to be accused of is railroading 
significant changes through in the guise of writing a dictionary, when the 
changes are only intended to have the dictionary wording be consistent in 
style.

>Of course, clarifications of various gismu are needed, I just don't
>think that they should be merged into the baseline document if we
>want to call it a baseline document.

I think there is room for such clarifications under the baseline policy, 
just as CLL clarified many grammar points without being considered to 
substantively change the grammar baseline. And just as CLL was open to 
debate for several months before it was published, the dictionary files 
will be open for a long time before they are published. But under the 
baseline policy, every change must be documented and justified, and these 
changes will be; I just intend to subsume them all in one single "change", 
which is what we did when we made similar non-substantive changes to the 
YACC grammar just before publishing CLL.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org