Re: BF (was: Re: sumti grammar oddity

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.