From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 07 18:07:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 8 Aug 2001 01:07:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 98598 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2001 01:07:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Aug 2001 01:07:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Aug 2001 01:07:21 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.7]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010808010719.VOZV15984.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 02:07:19 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: tu'o (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 02:06:26 +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: <4.3.2.7.2.20010807002419.00cc2370@pop.cais.com> From: "And Rosta" Lojbab: > 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. The Wiki seems the best place for keeping records that can eventually form the basis for more formal documents. Although I personally wouldn't have the patience or diligence to make best use of it, this Wiki idea seems truly excellent to me, and so I'd like to say a big thank you to Jay for it and to the others who've been building it up. --And.