From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Jul 17 22:45:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 18 Jul 2001 05:45:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 15420 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2001 05:45:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Jul 2001 05:45:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-1.cais.net) (205.252.14.71) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Jul 2001 05:45:21 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (210.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.210]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6I5jKY13378 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:45:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010718013911.00c666a0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:49:27 -0400 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] registry of experimental cmavo In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010717123710.00c2ce60@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 11:24 PM 07/17/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > 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, Yes. >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 Yes. > (which I construe as proposals >for a different loglan, not as proposals to oblige others to alter their >linguistic behaviour). If one wants proposals for a different loglan, I have no problems with this provided that they are clearly labelled as such. You will note that I never said a word about your own logical conlang efforts. If you want ideas for developing a son-of-Lojban (of a somewhat different name to avoid confusion), that is a different sort of thing (still not something I relish, but something I can officially ignore). > 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. There is nothing that you must "obey"; the fact that you have been invited to be a voting member means that you have been officially recognized as friendly to LLG, and I am neither a dictator or even a dictator-wannabe. Thus I will not tell you what to do, but rather indicate my concerns and their strength and let your friendly-to-LLG conscience be your guide. %^) Others in the community are of course welcome to chime in with their opinions as well. They don't have my problem of trying to lead a project while not repeating the mistakes of Schleyer, Zamenhof, or Brown. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org 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