WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Wiki page BPFK Section: Epistemology sumt...

On 5/16/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> My point would be that BAI that don't have usage
> are not BAI at all but only potentially BAI.

I'd be very happy to eliminate many, perhaps most, BAIs
from the language. I doubt very much anything like that
will happen though.

> They have no place in a dictionary, or, at most,
> should be mentioned as potential forms with some
> indication of where there usage might be expected
> to lie — but obviously not exact specification
> because we do not yet know what that is (if ever
> anything).

Given that they will all appear in the dictionary (we may
not like it but that's how it's going to be) that's exactly
what we are doing, i.e. providing indications of how we
expect them to be used. A lojban sentence is a much
better way of doing this than out of context English
keywords, in my opinion.

> That is, the way to build a
> dictionary — at this point in the language — is
> to find and explain the forms actually used, not
> to create and explain every possible form (an
> impossible task anyhow, so why even mess with a
> half-assed job).

That assumes that the language as actually used is
already good enough to be worth solidifying. I disagree
with that, I think most current usages are of relatively
poor quality and so a good deal of prescription is still
needed.

> Notice that, had the present program been carried
> out from the beginning, a large number of the
> established forms would not have the meaning they
> do and a number of useful (and used) notions
> would lack forms of the simple BAI type. I would
> expect this pattern to continue when the program
> is put in place starting after the beginning.

For example?

mu'o mi'e xorxes