Subject: Re: [lojban] Retraction, Part 1

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:34:01 +0100

>>> John Cowan <[email-masked]> 08/19/01 09:55pm >>>
#Nick Nicholas scripsit:
#> If a cabal of prominent Lojbanists* decides tomorrow to use an x2 for {ka}
#> in their writings, as recently independently suggested here,
#> 
#> (a) is their Lojban wrong? (I am speaking with respect to the
#> 'descriptivist' stance, though I guess what I'm really asking is LLG
#> policy.)
#> 
#> (b) are they to be discouraged?
#> 
#> (c) is such usage not to be documented in an official source, even as a
#> used variant?
#
#No, maybe, yes, respectively. The baseline (which is really a documentation
#freeze) delimits the official description, and does not at this point
#constrain usage (it never has *constrained* it of course, since LLG are
#not tyrants). The point of the 5 year period is to see whether the
#freeze at that point should be thawed and changed to reflect actual
#usage before being refrozen. Nevertheless, official LLG publications
#should not at this point be heard to defy other publications, mostly
#because it makes us look stoopid.

Because Lojbab & me have had such interminable arguments around these issues, I'd like to state here that I fully support what you say here, though itis good that unofficial documentation continues (e.g. via this excellent
wiki thing.)

--And.