version declaration for le lojbau

[Mr Andrew Rosta <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Sometimes when a grammar change is being discussed, people
worry not that the change will involve a lot of relearning
but rather that the change will invalidate existing text.
Has it been considered that after each baseline stage the
language be named with a version name or number, and that
there be some way of declaring the version used in a text.
Then changes could be made to the grammar with a guarantee
that formal correspondences have been established between
successive versions.


And.

ps I think _lo/le lojbau_ more appropriate than _la lojban_.
Certainly in English, at least, words whose sense is a
language behave like mass nouns rather than names. (E.g. _The
Lojban you speak is better than the Lojban I speak.) Consequently
I advocate the offical adoption of lots of lujvo like _lojbau,
glibau, rusybau_ and lehavla for the rest (I forget the rules
for lehavla - are _banava'o_ and _bantagalog_ OK?).