From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Aug 06 15:03:23 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 6 Aug 2002 22:03:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 8896 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2002 22:03:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Aug 2002 22:03:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao03.cox.net) (68.1.17.242) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Aug 2002 22:03:22 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020806220321.DRDH1975.lakemtao03.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 18:03:21 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020806174544.0324bd40@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 17:59:15 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: non-core translations In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab 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 lojbab@lojban.org 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