From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Aug 21 08:34:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 21 Aug 2001 15:34:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 59348 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2001 15:29:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Aug 2001 15:29:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Aug 2001 15:29:10 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:07:44 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:34:32 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:34:01 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Retraction, Part 1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta >>> John Cowan 08/19/01 09:55pm >>> #Nick Nicholas scripsit: #> If a cabal of prominent Lojbanists* decides tomorrow to use an x2 for {k= a} #> in their writings, as recently independently suggested here, #>=20 #> (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.) #>=20 #> (b) are they to be discouraged? #>=20 #> (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 documentati= on #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 issue= s, I'd like to state here that I fully support what you say here, though it= is good that unofficial documentation continues (e.g. via this excellent wiki thing.) --And.