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

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 17:40:25 -0400

At 11:11 AM 8/5/02 -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > I 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.
>
>What if the target language doesn't support the ambiguity which was
>accidental in the English description and which you want to retain? You
>may find yourself writing a paragraph to express the subtle imprecisions
>of a particular English keyword.

And as pc notes, in the long run we want the language to stand on its own 
and not on the English definitions.

>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.
>
>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.

Do I sense an anthropomorphism of LLG into a single person (perhaps its 
president)?

If "LLG" needs to correct misunderstandings, then "LLG" and not the LLG 
president would have to decide which competing interpretation it wishes to 
intend.

The appropriate standard for doing this has been established in the form of 
the change record for the YACC grammar as shown in:
http://www.lojban.org/files/machine-grammars/techfix.300

The changes I have been accumulating are of lesser scope than change 19 in 
that record, though with similar justification to that change and Change 47.

If people are willing to write up needed clarifications to correct 
"misunderstandings" in this form, then following the precedent established 
for the YACC grammar, those clarifications can be considered by "LLG" 
(meaning the community), and consensus in favor of a change will likely be 
the necessary condition for an actual change. (If and when someone 
actually writes a change proposal, we will be able to decide whether 
anything more needs to be done, policywise, beyond requiring consensus.)

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