[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab: > Well, if the byfy ever gets around to doing its job, rather than > redesigning the language, we can consider it. Choosing clearer words to > define the status quo language is reasonable. (This is my brief answer to > And's byfy question re conservatives, BTW - I'm simply not that interested > in considering much less discussing what I'm willing to change in the > language design until I see some sign that the byfy is working to define > the bulk of the language according to the status quo.) None of those people eager for the BF to define the bulk of the language according to the status quo are doing any of the work. The way things are currently developing, people are going to end up with a choice between the status quo ante (ante BF) and a version of the language that is internally consistent, well-defined, coherent, etc. etc., but not consistent with the status quo ante when such consistency would compromise the other aims excessively. If this is indeed how things turn out, then I imagine people will choose the version they prefer, or the version the majority prefers, or the version the majority chooses, or the version the LLG declares official and nonheretical. To my mind, though, it would be happier if formalist conservatives did actually try to come up with a definition of the language satisfactory to a formalist conservative. If they succeeded, then they would probably win over the rest of the conservatives and the rest of the formalists. If they tried but failed, that ought to convince people that a conservative formalism is impossible. --And.