[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick: > > [ I didn't read the whole message. I've been spending (wasting) > > too much time with jboske crap, which is currently quite a bit too > > tinkeringish for my taste. So no other response here. ] > > Respected. The accusation of tinkeringness is valid if the main > disputants are willing to sacrifice continuity (And and Jorge, consider > yourselves tarred :-) ). But that the current system *is* a mess, that > I believe is still clear. So we'll get back to you once the ontology > settles The best way to avoid sacrificing continuity is to leave the mess exactly as it is. People who want to avoid mess could then argue for new unmessy cmavo. I can at least respect that position as ideologically consistent, even if I prefer a different course for Lojban. But this idea of "We must fix the mess but avoid sacrificing continuity" is highly subjective. Fixing the mess by changing the baseline necessarily sacrifies continuity, and it becomes a matter of fine and subjective judgment which baseline changes sacrifice the most continuity. By all means, let's vote on proposals and let our individual votes be informed by our subjective judgments about which changes most sacrifice continuity. But it's not on to advocate sacrificing continuity and then brand your dispreferred proposal as the sacrifier of continuity. --And.