WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: lerfu Forming cmavo

posts: 162

Lessee if I can reply by email

At 12:06 PM 3/5/04 -0800, you wrote:
>Re: BPFK Section: lerfu Forming cmavo
>Posted by: rlpowell
>
> > noras:
> >
> > I think this page, and probably many others, may have to change -
> expand, really - as a result of interactions with other cmavo (especially
> the other lerfu cmavo) in order to clarify interactions.
>
>Boy, I certainly hope so.

Then I don't understand the "checkpoints". Why are we voting now, if we
know they are incomplete and we are going to be coming back and changing
them? My checkpoint votes are based on the assumption that this is
supposed to be more or less final, and only if a later change *requires*
revisiting these, would we be doing so. That is far different from
acknowledging that the thing is incomplete and needs to be expanded merely
to understand interactions with other cmavo.

As Nora noted to me, the level of review that seems to be taking place is
much less rigorous than we would have expected the byfy to be
undertaking. She thinks it is OK to proceed, if it is understood that we
will be doing another go-round; if this is the case, I think the chair
needs to make it more clear in the procedures what precisely a checkpoint
approval means now, and how open things will be to changes down the
pike. My threat of blanket vetoes that prompted Nick's quitting was
precisely because I was afraid that half-vetted work would be approved, and
that we would be stuck with it.

(Now perhaps it is just that no one cares that much about the lerfu shifts
that they were treated this lightly.)

> > However, we do need a basis on which to start looking at those
> interactions. For example, the parser says "lau ce'a a bu" is "({ BOI}
> VAU)".
>
>As there is neither a BOI nor a VAU in that string, I'd say the parser is
>confused.

I think she meant that the parser is grouping it, inserting the elided
terminators:
<[(lau <ce'a a bu>) BOI] VAU>

I'll try to spend some serious review time this weekend, so I can prepare
my own lucid comments. Sorry for being silent so long.

--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
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