Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: zo xruti xruti

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 11:25:35 -0400

At 10:18 PM 8/9/02 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > 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.

We couldn't have that now %^)

Seriously, I suspect that only things that "don't work" will get through 
the filter to the point of serious change consideration, but documenting 
other gripes in a standard way is a good idea anyway, and one possible 
solution that can be described is to use workaround A, B, or C.

But I feel that a situation where usage is at such deviation with the 
documentation that people would feel the *need* (and not merely the desire) 
to document two different place structures in a wordlist or dictionary is 
close to the threshold of "seriously broken" given the design 
philosophy. Unlike the alternate orthographies, I don't think Lojban 
presently has room for more than one place structure for words that is 
official enough to be documented before the language documents change from 
prescriptive to descriptive.

> Furthermore, any change to the
>baseline on the basis of such a controversial definition of brokenness
>would alienate pro-baseline fanatics.

I'm as fanatic as they come. And I'm not saying that these changes WILL BE 
made as changes, only that they reach the threshold where we would have to 
consider them if they are written up, and that they are serious enough that 
they should be written up.

>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?

Since the dictionary and the textbook and the other reference works DEFINE 
the baseline during this period, to say that they take into account usage 
means that the baseline is being changed to reflect 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.

That will be the likely philosophy AFTER the baseline period ends. But the 
official books ARE the baseline. (One reason we weasel about what to call 
Nick's book is that it is NOT considered the "official baseline 
textbook". The difference between official and non-official there has been 
treated somewhat differently than the official/non-official projects 
concept, which is probably why I was so resistant to changing the concept 
of "official". Nick's books are being officially published, but are not 
official baseline documents, which is a little scary if/when it turns out 
that there are some differences between what he has written and the 
official baseline.)

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