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

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 17:59:15 -0400

At 08:21 PM 8/6/02 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
>la adam cusku di'e
> >In fact, how you describe the situation, all that is
> >really baselined is the list of actual gismu with their general
> >meaning as set by the keyword. Everything else could theoretically be
> >open to debate and change if a consensus is reached. I was under the
> >impression that the whole list was baselined and would be considered
> >the defining document for the dictionary.
>
>Good. That means that {xruti} can still be fixed, since it was
>agreed at one point to remove the agent place but it was never
>done. I think in Spanish I translated it as non-agentive.

Removing places would be a violation of the standards of the baseline as 
conveyed to me when we started, and hence would require a higher degree of 
consensus than I think is possible. If it was in fact agreed, and no 
example in the CLL enshrines the current place structure, you would have a 
stronger case than normal, but under the guidelines I've received, I am not 
considering any such changes and will not do so on my own. We don't have a 
Lojban academy, so you basically have to convince the whole community and 
document the change.

If faced with some proposals of significance that need a decision and which 
seem to plausibly have the necessary consensus, then The Board or the 
voting membership will decide how to decide (depending on the circumstances 
when it is needed). The last approved baseline change, that of the keyword 
for mukti, was so long ago (1994) and was so contentious at the time, that 
no one has contemplated another change of that degree.

In any event, having a different number of places in two different language 
translations of the gismu and an agentive/nonagentive distinction 
enshrined, strikes me as asking for trouble.

> >(the additional clarifications have not yet been
> >translated into Spanish, for example, though perhaps they didn't
> >exist when that translation was made)
>
>I think they did already exist, but there was enough in
>them I disagreed with that I couldn't bring myself to tranlate
>them. Also many of the comments only apply to English. Probably
>each language should have its own set of comments in that section.

I agree. One might consider the English clarifications when writing the 
translation, but only use them if the same clarifications are needed in the 
target language, and feel free to add others where a distinction is needed 
in that language that is not present in English.

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