From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Nov 29 17:04:39 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 30 Nov 2002 01:04:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 22558 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2002 01:04:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2002 01:04:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2002 01:04:39 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Hw3i-00074G-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:04:38 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Hw3c-00073v-00; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:04:32 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:04:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Hw3S-00073f-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:04:22 -0800 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gAU1AAmW082391 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:10:10 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gAU1AADl082390 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:10:10 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:10:10 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Comments on the New Policy Message-ID: <20021130011010.GA82170@allusion.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FCuugMFkClbJLl1L" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 2773 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 12:42:22AM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > I support the great majority of Nick's views and the new=20 > policy document. Below are the points where I disagree to=20 > a lesser or greater extent. >=20 > A. Experimental cmavo > 1. The shape of a cmavo should not determine whether it is=20 > officially documented. If a sufficient number of people agree=20 > that there should be a cmavo with meaning M, and if there are=20 > no available CVV cmavo for M, then N should be assigned to a=20 > CVVV cmavo and documented. But the byfy *does* have authority to do this: " These experimental word forms may be freely used to experiment with new usages in actual communication. We intend (but will not enforce) that t= he "xVV" cmavo space be permanently experimental, meaning that if Lojban u= sers wish to adopt an experimental usage that has been found workable, we ur= ge that they choose a cmavo from the longer undefined cmavo space for permanent usage. The very small number of undefined cmavo in the regula= r cmavo space could also be used, but we urge that they be reserved only = for the most useful, widely accepted, and frequently used new ideas. [Note: the byfy will, as part of the process of documenting the cmavo list, have the authority to assign meanings to unused cmavo. These assignments wi= ll be for two purposes: " nitcion's statement about this stuff suggests that he expects a few such cmavo may be officially assigned. [...] > 3. The baseline should accept that future study and usage of=20 > Lojban will reveal the need not only for additional fu'ivla but=20 > also for additional cmavo (and perhaps even additional gismu and=20 > rafsi, as witness the problematic absence of a gismu for "intend").=20 > The baseline should assign existing cmavo a clear definite meaning,=20 > but should not be taken as permanently defining what is and isn't=20 > a standard official cmavo. I don't understand why "intend" needs to be a gismu instead of some other sort of brivla... Furthermore, as was discussed when it came up on the list, the word "intend" seems to have a somewhat sloppy meaning in english (like most things), and many of the concepts spill over into a number of other lojban words, which are either gismu or lujvo. > B. Zipfeanism & Lojban's serving its speakers [...] While I agree that short stuff is nice, I think stability is even nicer. One thing the byfy *may* be able to do is to have an official statement which discourages use of a few cmavo which have never been used (for example, by assigning forms in CVVV space to them) that are single sylable (such as lau), so that in the future (i.e. post-baseline) they can be reclaimed to shorten common things. I would like to see xVV get reserved for this as well, though the statement seems to want to keep them experimental. IMHO there's no need for reserving a permanent experimental area, as the experimentals can just get longer: CV'V'V'V'V'V space will *never* be used up. It's much more useful to have xVV reserved as space to make things shorter in the (distant) future. Lojbab/nick/etc, do you guys think the byfy would have authority to make such a statement (if people were to vote for it)? mu'o --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE96A/yDrrilS51AZ8RApa8AJ9607jvuI81lAlmzl6cqxi77DEDTQCfTUyv xfHsu1ty9MW9Ie9qFkUgH7c= =l7hC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L--