Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [llg-members] Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:08:37 -0500

At 12:00 PM 11/28/02 -0500, you wrote:
>I have three proposals for changes/clarifications to the language:
>1. Form of cmene (I regard {ala'um} as valid).
>2. Form of fu'ivla (I regard {srutio} and {letcue} as valid).
>3. Expand the class of rafsi fu'ivla (e.g. {koblnrapa zei tsiju} ->
>{koblnrapytsi}, {pa zei te ze kotledona} -> {pavyterykotledona}) and modify
>the rules for forming rafsi fu'ivla lujvo (e.g. {cagyglauka},
>{norybre'onyxagri}).

All three of these are changes to the baseline, not clarifications, and are 
not part of the cmavo definition effort. I doubt that they will get much 
consideration therefore; usages by a single person are not sufficient to 
decide an issue. There will be a procedure for making such proposals, 
however. The procedures will be determined by Nick and the byfy.

>When I write them up in Lojban, where should I submit them?

Nick will determine the procedures. Writing then up in Lojban is not 
necessary, though you are welcome to do so.

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