[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la lojbab cusku di'e > 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.) I don't understand what you are asking for. Pierre, Arnt, Craig, And and I have taken up topics to shepherd and it seems to me we have all done acceptable jobs of describing the status quo for those topics. If you disagree, you should point out where we have gone astray. There are also some discussions going on in shepherdless topics. It seems that the main problem is that we have a shortage of shepherds to describe the status quo, not that we are discussing changes. Some discussions don't quite fit in any one topic. For example, I posted a description of the status quo on tags as connectives here: http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/tags%20as%20connectives Is that the kind of documentation you say is not being done? If that is not a proper description of the status quo, how come nobody objects to it? We are also having a discussion on UIs. Again it seems to be mostly trying to figure out the status quo: http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/UI%20types http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/scope%20of%20UIs > (piso'e can be "most of" which is where the "most" came from; keywords were > intended to be memory hooks and not definitional.) Relative numbers work > as cardinals in outer quantifiers - they indicate an indefinite number > relatively large or small compared to the inner quantifier. As inner > quantifiers, we don't have good keywords for indefinite cardinals because > they are relative to some arbitrary standard. > > Maybe "myriad" would be a good key word for the internal so'e. It conveys > a larger number than "many". But "so'e le paki'o broda" then doesn't work, > because the translation is different in an outer quantifier with a definite > inner quantifier. Maybe "an extremely large number", "a very large number", "a large number", "a not so large number", "a small number". Then the BF can decide whether we want that, or something closer to what the keywords suggest. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com