Subject: support for byfy

From: "G. Dyke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 16:44:41 +0100

Hi

I'd just like to point out that I abstained but do have full support for
Nick and the BF (insofar as I would like to see a better definition of cmavo
and several other things which it seems the bf may do).

In the normal course of events, I expect nothing to happen from anything
that LLG sets out to do (even though that is a bit unfair, as it has managed
to do a lot of stuff), so I wouldn't think voting for or against anything
would make the slightest bit of difference

As there are some things in the statement which I disagree with (either as
impracticable, ridiculous or downright not what I want) I've decided not to
vote *for* the statement, just in case people actually do get things done,
in which case I can put a sticker on my bumper "don't blame me, I
abstained".

I have no interest in the baseline, so my lojban will not be rigourously
altered by any decisions of the bf or by it clearly saying foo in CLL. I do
however like people to understand me when I say something in lojban, so I'll
be sticking fairly close to what other people use. (but I won't avoid using
something which people falsely claim to misconstrue)

The BNF grammar is sacrosanct. I am against any revisions which seek to
modify it. I either wants redoing as mark II or leaving as it is.

I suggest that those cmavo in xvv might be used to exploit the preparser
while experimental/post-199? cmavo be in cvvv.

mu'o
--
http://www.myepfl.ch/gregory.dyke
e'osai ko sarji la lojban - www.lojban.org

"That man is such an ignoramus, Father." [...]
"Stand inside his soul and see the world through his eyes. You will feel the
pain he feels because of his ignorance, and you will not laugh."
-- Chaim Potok, "The Chosen"