Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: tu'o (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:33:28 -0400

At 11:16 PM 8/6/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
>(I'm assuming that the Refgram is more set in stone than the English
>glosses-cum-definitions of cmavo.)

No. They are equally set in stone. In case of contradiction, the 
dictionary will have the opportunity to remedy the situation under the 
"correction of error" exception to the baseline.

Thus someone could legitimately accumulate contradictions in the refgrammar 
and amongst the various baseline documents, seeking that they be resolved 
where possible in the dictionary (or textbook) where appropriate, but for 
the most part we are not considering any substantive corrections to the 
cmavo (as opposed to the typo that Jorge discovered a couple weeks ago in 
the definition of gi) prior to the next baseline-defining book.

A mechanism for doing this was discussed briefly at LogFest, but at the 
moment I think I/we have too much on our plates with Nick's books to focus 
on the desired methods to support this mechanism. I'll go into it more 
when I have the leisure to think things out better.

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