From a-rosta@alphaphe.com Fri Aug 09 14:17:11 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a-rosta@alphaphe.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 9 Aug 2002 21:17:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 30682 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2002 21:17:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Aug 2002 21:17:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.alphaphe.net) (217.33.150.223) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Aug 2002 21:17:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 5236 invoked by uid 101); 9 Aug 2002 21:16:59 -0000 Received: from host62-6-131-222.webport.bt.net (HELO oemcomputer) (62.6.131.222) by smtp.alphaphe.net with SMTP; 9 Aug 2002 21:16:59 -0000 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: zo xruti xruti Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 22:18:31 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020807190712.030edae0@pop.east.cox.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-EDATA: smtp.alphaphe.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AlphaPhe.Net (www.alphaphe.net) From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110020381 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Lojbab: > At 10:30 PM 8/7/02 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > >But it is harder to encourage the more useful version if it is not > >mentioned in dictionaries. People who never heard of the discussion > >will tend to use what they find in the dictionary, even if it is > >a bit awkward to do so. > > > >It would be nice to have at least a note in the English and other > >versions with a brief mention that some people use xruti > >non-agentively. > > If there is substantial agreement that it is broken, then someone write it > up using Cowan's "techfix" format, and we can ask Robin (or Jay on the > wiki) to set up a place for these change proposals to be > accumulated. We'll figure out how to decide officially what to do sometime > before the dictionary is published, probably much sooner for this one since > it affects translation of the gismu list. But until someone goes through > the motions of writing it up formally we have no basis on which to act. I > don't want to be the one solely deciding which discussions of change > proposals on the list or the wiki are worthy of something as major as a > baseline change and doing the writeup, so I'll let the people who want the > change do the work to document and justify it. > > A formal change to the baseline for something "broken" strikes me as better > than having two different place structures documented in the list for any > language version. In that I go beyond agreeing with xod. This seems a bad idea to me, if we define "broken" not as "doesn't work" but instead as "doesn't work as well as some hypothetical alternative", then the language is reopened to debates about its design & I would feel compelled to get involved again. Furthermore, any change to the baseline on the basis of such a controversial definition of brokenness would alienate pro-baseline fanatics. Surely it would be much better that the baseline is accepted as de facto permanent, but that the dictionary and textbook and other reference materials take into account usage? After all, the prevailing view in the Lojban community is that the language is to be defined not by the baselined materials but by actual usage, though the baselined materials are not redundant, because they serve to guide and constrain and direct usage. --And.