From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Nov 28 23:14:00 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 29 Nov 2002 07:14:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 51876 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2002 07:13:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2002 07:13:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao03.cox.net) (68.1.17.242) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Nov 2002 07:13:59 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021129071359.IFSY2204.lakemtao03.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 02:13:59 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129015947.03165ec0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 02:07:30 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [llg-members] Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy In-Reply-To: <02112815425908.02982@neofelis> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128140213.031df040@pop.east.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021127163350.036c0b80@pop.east.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021128140213.031df040@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab 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 lojbab@lojban.org 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