From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Feb 26 18:56:01 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 27 Feb 2003 02:56:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 32284 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2003 02:56:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Feb 2003 02:56:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lmsmtp05.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.115) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 2003 02:56:00 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-70-145.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.70.145]) by lmsmtp05.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1181B1FD10 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:55:59 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Nick will be with you shortly Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 02:55:57 -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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Craig: > >a talent for it), & if it gives rise to more questions & discussion then > that > >will end up as a recapitulation of debates that already happened on > >Jboske. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, but if it is allowed to, then > > If a thing has already been discussed on jboske, then it ought to be > sufficient for someone to post a summary of that > > >we must accept that BF is a longhaul operation, rather than something > >that should have been over by May > > Oh, I'm sure. But it would be better to ONLY patch genuine problems with the > language, but patch them slowly, than to fix everything anyone dislikes Sadly, this is far from straightforward, for the following reason. The general picture that emerges from jboske discussion of any topic is that nobody is certain what the official rule is -- i.e. there is no official rule, and Lojbab's contributions have proved that even where there seems to be an official rule it can be called into enough question to undermine it. This means that we aren't in a situation where we have a clear official rule that we find to be broken. Rather, we are in a situation where there is (de facto) no official rule, and hence the need is for the BF to propose a clear official rule. The proposal will ideally be compatible with prior usage and as consistent as possible with Woldy, and it can always be vetoed. But to reiterate, it turns out that the need is for the BF to make clear prescriptions wherever (= pretty much everywhere) one was lacking. There are no issues of tinkering, since tinkering can quite happily be applied to Academic Lojban, and no tinkerer is going to be satisfied with tinkering on Standard Lojban. --And.