Irony and the Baseline

[Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>]

At 1997-11-14 10:12, Logical Language Group wrote:

>The refgrammar is only a book, and only omne of several we intend to
>publish to reflect the baseline.  It is a grammar first and formost, and
>is not a statemenht of philosophy (though some of that by necessity went
>into the writing).

But surely publishing any material now that adds to or otherwise modifies
the language as defined by the existing published material would
constitute a violation of the baseline, at least in spirit? A statement
of philosophy would be great, but there's a difference between philosophy
and prescription.

>>and it's too late to change it now
>
>Well you are making a strong case that one of the other books needs to
>include this philosophical matter stated clearly.  But it is not a
>change so it isn;t too late.

It's an addition. I think that counts as a change. Bear in mind there are
no rules {javni} in the published baseline material forbidding irony, so
it is quite alarming at least to me as a learner of the language to have
these new rules apparently popping up out of nowhere. I am at least
heartened that there are no rules in the sense of {javni} in the refgram,
so I can reasonably ignore all _loi javni_ that anyone may care to foist
upon me without compromising any skill I may acquire in Lojban.


--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA
http://www.halcyon.com/ashleyb/