[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 08:13 PM 9/14/03 +0100, you wrote:
Bob: The formal publishable definitions would follow once the decisions have been made, with the definitions composed and/or edited by whoever has the requisite energies and abilities.
I should hope that we are deciding based on formal publishable definitions, and not on things less fluid. When people are insisting on voting every typo correction to the gismu list, they will also be voting on every translation from phpbb discussion into formal definition.
It's not surprising that participants tended not to expend energies on defining cmavo that are entirely uncontroversial, since the motivation forparticipating in the BF is to define the elements whose definition had not beenuncontroversially agreed on.
It may not be surprising, but that has been the problem for many years - people want to do what they find interesting, not what needs to be done.
IOW, the underlying problem the BF was tryingto address was not the inadequacy of documentation but the indeterminacy of therules and definitions that must be documented.
The BF was trying to address a lot of things, including the lack of a cmavo dictionary (or a cmavo list of a sort or quality that could easily be turned into a dictionary), the miscellaneous complaints about CLL which were unresolved, and most importantly the lack of a final baseline to start the 5 year period which WAS impacted by an inadequacy of documentation. Rather low (nonexistent?) on the list of priorities was the consideration of anything new that had not been brought up as being unresolved by CLL.
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