From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Oct 10 07:43:27 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 10 Oct 2002 14:43:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 41426 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2002 14:18:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Oct 2002 14:18:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.105) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Oct 2002 14:18:34 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 07:18:34 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:18:34 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Usage deciding (was: RE: Re: [Announcement] The Alice Translation Has Moved And Changed Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:18:34 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2002 14:18:34.0822 (UTC) FILETIME=[EB1C0660:01C27067] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la lojbab cusku di'e >I have long been afraid that Jorge's using an innovation might become >accepted as a viable standard merely because he has used it a lot. Do you have a concrete example that causes you such concern? Why would it be a problem that something I use becomes accepted? Are you similarly afraid of innovations by other users of the language? > "Let >usage decide" was meant to refer to collective usage by many people in many >contexts, so that the usage itself becomes normative rather than >exceptional. {ka'enai} would seem to be the best example of that, not only against CLL but also against the baselined grammar, and yet used by many people in many contexts. >Jorge is free to advocate his ideas through usage, but has to >be prepared for people noticing and objecting. I do my best to be prepared. Some people tend to object more than to notice, though. Many objections arise only after I bring the issue up myself in discussions. >As long as it is his >private writing, he can then decide whether to listen to them. All of my writing is my private writing, isn't it? >Barring >Alice being called a Jorge-only project (which may indeed be happening), >being dialectal seems wrong. It would be unfair to the other three contributors to call it a Jorge-only project. Adam did a fair bit of work (about a chapter and a half) and Pierre and Robin did significant parts of another chapter, though I heavily edited those. Also Pierre did extensive revision of all the work. But I don't mind it having big red warning signs "DANGER - EDITED BY XORXES" all over it if that makes you happy. >The Board is attempting at this moment to wrestle with a clear statement of >baseline policy and making progress. I don't want to try to argue the >issue in multiple fora. It is proving hard enough with only 7 of us, >though consensus may be starting to win out. Could you remind us who the 7 members are? Is this 7-people consensus going to be representative of the opinions of the community at large? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com