From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 21 10:07:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 21 Sep 2002 17:07:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 6600 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2002 17:07:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Sep 2002 17:07:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d06.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.38) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Sep 2002 17:07:18 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.5a.11ee8a9b (4320) for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5a.11ee8a9b.2abe0135@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:07:01 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_5a.11ee8a9b.2abe0135_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_5a.11ee8a9b.2abe0135_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/21/2002 8:48:59 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << > The experimental gismu are silly, but the experimental cmavo aren't. > All the experimental cmavo suggested by me are serious. Most are > brainstormed ideas that deserve to be rejected, but some make a great > improvement to Lojban. > >> Well, your entitled to think so (and presumably do if you've gone to the trouble to present them), but I haven't seen a cse that convincesme nor one that clearly can't be handled in Lojban as is (though just how may be less clear). I don't suppose you invent a new word every time your ingenuity fails you in finding the right way to say something (at least partly because you don't engage in that search often -- if at all), but others do and I dislike encoruaging it. << Anyway, what is this notion of 'LLG-compliance'? You may know something I don't, but to me it's rubbish to suggest that the LLG tries to prevent discussion of how Lojban could be improved. Indeed, that would go against its very founding principles (that see Loglans as an instrument of linguistic research). >> I take this to mean no more than that LLG would object to someone passing off as possicial Lojban something that is not in conformity with the baseline. Minimally, a blanket statement that nothing in various places is to count as official Lojban -- the language to be learned -- but what bears the stamp. Once a person is moderately good at the official language as a base, he can go hog wild for his own and others' amusement and so on. But he can't complain if people refuse to understand what he says that is outside the baseline. << I think that if the Wiki were officially associated with the LLG (in fact, is it not now an official LLG project, as listed at lojban.org?), nothing about it would change. >> If it is an official LLG project, it is committed to maintaining the baseline for Lojban, which I take to mean nothing more than that places whee deviations may occur are labelled as such. In this case, I suspect the whole is -- at least implicitly -- labelled and some pages are explicitly so: "What's wrong with baselined Lojban" with various degrees of specificity). --part1_5a.11ee8a9b.2abe0135_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/21/2002 8:48:59 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:

<<
The experimental gismu are silly, but the experimental cmavo aren't.
All the experimental cmavo suggested by me are serious. Most are
brainstormed ideas that deserve to be rejected, but some make a great
improvement to Lojban.
>>
Well, your entitled to think so (and presumably do if you've gone to the trouble to present them), but I haven't seen a cse that convincesme nor one that clearly can't be handled in Lojban as is (though just how may be less clear).  I don't suppose you invent a new word every time your ingenuity fails you in finding the right way to say something (at least partly because you don't engage in that search often -- if at all), but others do and I dislike encoruaging it.

<<
Anyway, what is this notion of 'LLG-compliance'? You may know something
I don't, but to me it's rubbish to suggest that the LLG tries to
prevent discussion of how Lojban could be improved. Indeed, that
would go against its very founding principles (that see Loglans as
an instrument of linguistic research).
>>
I take this to mean no more than that LLG would object to someone passing off as possicial Lojban something that is not in conformity with the baseline.  Minimally, a blanket statement that nothing in various places is to count as official Lojban -- the language to be learned -- but what bears the stamp.  Once a person is moderately good at the official language as a base, he can go hog wild for his own and others' amusement and so on.  But he can't complain if people refuse to understand what he says that is outside the baseline.

<<
I think that if the Wiki were officially associated with the LLG
(in fact, is it not now an official LLG project, as listed at
lojban.org?), nothing about it would change.
>>
If it is an official LLG project, it is committed to maintaining the baseline for Lojban, which I take to mean nothing more than that places whee deviations may occur are labelled as such.  In this case, I suspect the whole is -- at least implicitly -- labelled and some pages are explicitly so: "What's wrong with baselined Lojban" with various degrees of specificity). --part1_5a.11ee8a9b.2abe0135_boundary--