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

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 02:07:30 -0500

At 03:42 PM 11/28/02 -0500, Pierre wrote:
>On Thursday 28 November 2002 14:08, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> > 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 were rafsi fu'ivla made part of the baseline? They are listed in the
>refgram as an experimental proposal.

I suspect that rafsi fu'ivla will remain an experimental proposal, but is 
found in the refgrammar. The byfy task is defining the baseline, which 
includes the refgrammar.

>Can you point me to the criteria that make {srutio}, {letcue}, and (I
>remembered the other one) {damskrima} invalid? As far as I can tell from the
>specification in the refgram, they are valid.

The first two are lujvo. Under the TLI alternate orthography, the 
apostrophe can be omitted in V'V unless the associated VV is a standard 
diphthong.

But if in fact you think that they are allowed by the refgrammar, why would 
you be asking for a change to the spec?

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