my take on the lujvo paper

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

My policy has been that the stuff in the lujvo paper will be "a"
standard for lujvo making but not necessarily the only standard nor an
"official" standard in that anyone is compelled to follow it as part of
a baseline.  But then lujvo place structures are not being baselined, so
the latter would not be appropriate at this time.

In any event, Jorge is the only one who has even half-tested Nick's
rules by trying to analyze a significant number of lujvo on his own, and
I am not sure he actually checked to see if he followed the rules.
Before I express stronger support for the lujvo paper "guidelines", I
will want to see that other people agree with what it results in, and
can and will follow it in defining lujvo place structures.

We have a couple thousand of them to be analyzed, so people who are
strong proponents of the standard are welcome to prove the standard %^).

lojbab

(responding to Cowan's statement calling for Lojban Central to consider
the lujvo paper on a par with the rest of the refgrammar)