From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sun Dec 01 11:41:13 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 1 Dec 2002 19:41:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 85480 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2002 19:14:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2002 19:14:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.113) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2002 19:14:32 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-71-178.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.71.178]) by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 591593CF44 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:14:30 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: BP & unintelligible cmavo (was: RE: Re: Why we should cancel the vote or all vote NO (was RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 19:16:38 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin I wrote: > Nick: [...] > > And: Unintelligible cmavo > > > > We will go with the supplicatory model before we decide we don't know > > what a cmavo is. The current statement of the baseline does not allow > > cmavo deletion, because all cmavo are documented in CLL, one way or > > another. To erase cmavo would be a major techfix, and I am opposed to > > such ventures on principle > > In my experience, the supplicatory model doesn't really work, because > -- to put it hyperbolically -- we end up with Lojbab's half-baked > understanding or recollection of what something meant 20 years ago > in Loglan or what a gang of now-invisible and uninterrogable > Lojbanists came up with 15 years ago > > I agree that deleting these cmavo is quite a radical step, but it is > also a refreshingly honest one On further thought, there's a good case here for *not* defining or abolishing these cmavo & just leaving them to usage -- & omitting them from the mini-dict or including them with the statement "no established meaning". That is, if jboskology can't see any natural candidate meanings, why not just hand them over to the naturalists? That would be quite interesting, in that we could see how naturalism would operate without interference from prescriptivists. --And.