Subject: [lojban] Re: nai in UI (was: BPFK phpbb)

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:37:08 -0400

At 05:25 PM 4/28/03 -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
>yOn Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > BPFK is consensus-minus-one. I count at *least* 3 people who won't
> > even give this idea the time of day until a complete grammar change
> > proposal is put forth.
>
> > Either put up or shut up.
>
>If you want to see what was proposed, then check the subject header of
>this mail.

That is not a proposal. See the YACC Grammar Techfixes to see what USED to 
be the minimum standard for a proposal (along with a valid YACC) even to be 
seriously discussed. In the current context, the justification needs to be 
stronger, and put in terms of the rules as set forth by Nick, and the goals 
for byfy as set forth by the Baseline Policy statement.

>Questioning why nai can or can't go in certain places is a logical action
>after realizing that usage has drifted away from the official grammar on
>this very issue.

We aren't ready to discuss that yet, since we don't have written down what 
"nai" 'means' at the dictionary definition level under ANY interpretation, 
nor do we have the definition for any of the words that nai interacts with.

>This topic was inspired by Holy Usage, not pure abstract
>tinkering.

It was inspired by jboske-ist habits, and people forgetting that the byfy 
is NOT jboske.

>Therefore I don't accept your apparent dismissal of the
>discussion as an outrageous threat to decency.

It is a threat to the byfy, because we cannot afford to waste time in 
useless discussions that get no words defined, and which drive away byfy-ists.

>If "the prohibition of meaningless sentences" is one of our goals, we have
>much work ahead of us.

Defining the language AS IT IS (NOT "as it should be") is the goal. If you 
need more specificity as to what this means, see the Baseline Policy Statement.

>However, I think your goal is closer to "the
>prohibition of meaningless sentences which are newly allowed by a grammar
>change, and the toleration of meaningless sentences that are already
>permitted", so I'm sure you'll understand me if I label that justification
>somewhat arbitrary,

The baseline policy was decided and voted on. Yes, it is arbitrary. It 
still is the policy.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
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