[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab: > At 01:21 PM 9/12/03 +0100, you wrote: > >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. > > Correct. But that is the byfy charter. People seemed to have taken on > shepherding and presumed that their primary job was to lead discussions > about changes to what has not yet been sufficiently designed. > > >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. > > Not if no one ever writes a single definition page. > > >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. > > People are no longer willing to wait until Lojbab has time to define the > cmavo; I don't blame them. But the bottom line is that the byfy isn't > currently doing what it was chartered to do, and I see no path from what is > being done to any definition of anything. > > More in response to Jorge, but then let's move this to the meta-byfy forum. The fact remains that the only work currently being done is me & xorxes working towards defining a version of Lojban. Unless the BF gets active again, we will end up with a choice between the two versions -- the one the status quo & full of holes, the other without holes but not filtered through the predilections of the change-averse. Since your average Lojbanist (a) is change-averse and (b) favours a hole- free language, it's hard to predict which version the average Lojbanist would prefer. That's why I'm saying that advocates of a hole-free language that caters to the change averse should get to work. --And.