From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 20 18:19:44 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 21 Sep 2002 01:19:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 85902 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2002 01:19:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Sep 2002 01:19:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m03.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.6) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Sep 2002 01:19:44 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.bc.2cc51040 (18707) for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:19:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:19:31 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] corrigible vlaste? RE: Re: I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_bc.2cc51040.2abd2323_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_bc.2cc51040.2abd2323_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/20/2002 2:23:20 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << > It's really the baseline that is ill-conceived. It is inevitable that > at the stage of development the language was at when it was baselined > it would be full of things awkward & ill-conceived. >> I suppose it was inevitable and the baseliners should have made some provision for it, but coming from a situation in which nothing was ever nailed down, but subject to change on (quite literally) a whim, they erred in the othre direction. And, for all that, the results have been pretty unchallenged over the years -- we don't have a count, alas, but I have less than a hundred headings in my vocab files, and many of those are not really serious changes but clarifications and other are [well, you know, like yours]. << > I wonder whether it would be worthwhile keeping on a wiki a ma'oste > and gi'uste where revisions can be made that correct some of the faults > of the baselined versions -- stripping out unnecessary sumti places, > making place structures consistent, revising definitions, etc. That > way we have some sort of ongoing record of what the vocab should be > like had it not been baselined, and it also means that we have a > shared point of reference. >> It might be useful to have them some public place, but I think that the Wiki, which probably wants to keep its LLG approval rating, is the wrong place. I offer the Loccan archives for now and will pump up a list of existing questions for a place with that. This is what loCCan is for, after all. It probably doesn't even mind Cloud-cuckooese, as long as there is a reasonable connection the historic Loglan and Lojban. <<> > Whenever Jorge points out flaws in the gismu, I invariably agree > with him, but don't keep records of the revisions that his remarks > imply. It would be useful to record these in the form of a corrigible > vlaste. >> xorxes or you worrying about a word is a good reason to look at it carefully. This does NOT mean, however, that your solutions to the problem are the best -- or even acceptable -- within Lojban. Some of them are, after all, using a thermonuclear device as a flyswatter. --part1_bc.2cc51040.2abd2323_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/20/2002 2:23:20 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:

<<

It's really the baseline that is ill-conceived. It is inevitable that
at the stage of development the language was at when it was baselined
it would be full of things awkward & ill-conceived.

>>
I suppose it was inevitable and the baseliners should have made some provision for it, but coming from a situation in which nothing was ever nailed down, but subject to change on (quite literally) a whim, they erred in the othre direction. And, for all that, the results have been pretty unchallenged over the years -- we don't have a count, alas, but I have less than a hundred headings in my vocab files, and many of those are not really serious changes but clarifications and other are [well, you know, like yours].

<<

I wonder whether it would be worthwhile keeping on a wiki a ma'oste
and gi'uste where revisions can be made that correct some of the faults
of the baselined versions -- stripping out unnecessary sumti places,
making place structures consistent, revising definitions, etc. That
way we have some sort of ongoing record of what the vocab should be
like had it not been baselined, and it also means that we have a
shared point of reference.

>>
It might be useful to have them some public place, but I think that the Wiki, which probably wants to keep its LLG approval rating, is the wrong place. I offer the Loccan archives for now and will pump up a list of existing questions for a place with that. This is what loCCan is for, after all. It probably doesn't even mind Cloud-cuckooese, as long as there is a reasonable connection the historic Loglan and Lojban.

<<

Whenever Jorge points out flaws in the gismu, I invariably agree
with him, but don't keep records of the revisions that his remarks
imply. It would be useful to record these in the form of a corrigible
vlaste.

>>
xorxes or you worrying about a word is a good reason to look at it carefully. This does NOT mean, however, that your solutions to the problem are the best -- or even acceptable -- within Lojban. Some of them are, after all, using a thermonuclear device as a flyswatter.

--part1_bc.2cc51040.2abd2323_boundary--