Re: BF definitions

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 tobe
> > 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 [email protected]
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