From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Tue Jul 17 15:26:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 17 Jul 2001 22:26:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 54841 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2001 22:24:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Jul 2001 22:24:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Jul 2001 22:24:59 -0000 Received: from m156-mp1-cvx1b.bir.ntl.com ([62.255.40.156] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15Md1x-0007C4-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:09:26 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] registry of experimental cmavo Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:24:07 +0100 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: <4.3.2.7.2.20010717123710.00c2ce60@127.0.0.1> From: "And Rosta" Lojbab: > At 02:32 PM 07/17/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote: > >Jay: > > > On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, And Rosta wrote: > > > > > > > A. Is there a registry of experimental cmavo? If not, could > > > > we have one? If noone else wants to maintain it, I'd volunteer > > > > to. > > > > > > My web page dictionary will allow people to submit experimental > > > cmavo and gismu, when it is complete. > > > >This is good, but I'd like to have access to records specifically > >of proposed additions/innovations/augmentations to the language. > > There is no formal method of proposing additions, innovations, or > augmentations to the language, and Lojban Central is unalterably opposed to > even setting up a system for doing so during the baseline period, because > the mere existence of such a system renders one major purpose of the > baseline meaningless (the two major purposes being long term stability in > order to develop a large speaker population and, the one that is > threatened, the transfer of the language change process from one of formal > control and direction to one of natural language change by evolution among > speakers of the language). > > Proposals for changes are by their nature prescriptions. We want no > prescriptions other than the official language, until the baseline period > ends. Ideally, at that point, there will be no need for English language > discussion of changes. I'm not sure (a) whether you're saying that Lojban Central wants no proposals for change and does not want to set up a system for registering changes, or (b) whether Lojban Central (and by implication LLG in all likelihood) wants to prevent the wider Lojban community from collectively maintaining an unofficial register of proposals for change (which I construe as proposals for a different loglan, not as proposals to oblige others to alter their linguistic behaviour). If (a) then I know, but it doesn't change my interest in loglan design. If (b), then you need to be more explicit about what prohibitions someone friendly to LLG must obey. --And.