[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 05:19 PM 12/22/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
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.
Yes, but that does not get a dictionary written.
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" is required if we cannot write an acceptable dictionary definition, or if there are multiple contradictory definitions in play, because one of the Lojban rules is avoidance of polysemy.
Fixing the mess by changing the baseline necessarily sacrifies continuity,
which is why we want to be very careful about where and when we change the baseline.
and it becomes a matter of fine and subjective judgment which baseline changes sacrifice the most continuity.
Of course. No one ever said that the byfy would be an objective system of resolving disputes.
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.
Any and all arguments are in order, if they lead to consensus. Consensus in this case means convincing lojbab and Jordan (and who knows who else has volunteered), and not just Nick.
The discussions we are having are NOT aimed at the "voting", but at the consensus building that will be necessary whenever the vote will be divided (as seems likely in this case), since consensus is not "majority rules".
Remember that if there is no consensus for change, the status quo with all its flaws remains. Nick does not need to defend the status quo, but has to fight as hard as anyone if he wants to see any changes. (He does have the bully pulpit to his advantage in arguing his views, as well as a commanding level of respect for his Lojbanic and linguistic knowledge that has only been enhanced in the last couple of weeks of discussion.)
lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email 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