Re: sumti grammar oddity

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 for
>participating in the BF is to define the elements whose definition had not 
>been
>uncontroversially 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 trying
>to address was not the inadequacy of documentation but the indeterminacy 
>of the
>rules 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 [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