[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 06:27 PM 9/15/03 -0700, Jorge "Llambías" wrote:
la lojbab cusku di'e > But on the other hand that much complexity renders it hard to > vote on some kinds of issues: I would presume that people might like to > vote on the broader outlines of the Jorge/And gadri proposal, and then > worrying the details for each individual word. As Nick's rules seem to be > stated, we vote on each word as defined separately, and it is an > all-or-nothing vote on that word. It makes more sense to vote on the general principles first.
But that is not what Nick said the procedures were.
> Of course if we define the status quo as best we can (as I wish), showing > polysemy if there is more than one usage, and approve that status quo as > defining what is, change proposals can presumably be written broken into > subissues however necessary to resolve the issues, and we know both where > we are, and what still needs to be done. I don't think anyone opposes defining the status quo as best we can. That's what people are doing with the topics they are shepherding.
Then why are there no definition pages, which is what Nick said was the form for that status quo definition.
> >Would something like that be what you are expecting? > > Ask Nick. He's the boss. But it is you who were asking for specific definitions.
No. I am asking that Nick's plan as set forth in the beginning be followed, even while not being all that clear as to what he intended the definition pages to look like. I supported and signed up for the byfy based on what he wrote - that our goal was to produce definition pages. We aren't doing what he described, and it seems like everyone is avoiding doing so.
Nick was satisfied that we were on the right track with what we have on the phpbb.
Then Nick is being inconsistent with what he wrote (he's allowed to make mistakes, but I can't support a product-less byfy, and I cannot vote in favor of decisions that are not well-rooted in a description of the existing language).
> There might also need to be explanations of the semantics of
> compounds: ze'u pu vs pu ze'u, ze'unai if it means something.
I think {ze'u pu} and {pu ze'u} will fall under the general mechanism of
tag compounds: {ze'u pu} indicates that the event is past of something
for a long time, {pu ze'u} indicates that a long lasting event is in the
past of something. It doesn't seem to require a special rule.
I can see this, but I don't know where Nick intends that it will go in the documentation, or will CLL stand unmodified. And whether the same shepherd handles compounds.
I would > presume at a minimum that if a semantics discussion has come up on Lojban > List or jboske, it should be mentioned in the definition page along with > any resolution that has been achieved. Likewise any odd examples in > usage. These are things that the shepherd presumably finds out, but I> don't exactly know, since I am less than certain of what the shepherd's job > is - it overlaps research, definition page writing, and "cat-herding" those> who are discussing the topic. All that is being done on the phpbb.
The phpbb is supposed to be the discussion, not the documentation. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org