George Boeree | Re: [LFN] Re: New LFN

• Autor: George Boeree (“cgboeree”)
• Tema: Re: [LFN] Re: New LFN
• Data: 2009-09-01 18:56
• Mesaje: 3079 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

Hi, all!

I don't really think we need to worry about the issue of
"fundamentos" and "academies". If you go to http://lfn.wikia.com/wiki/
LFN_grammar_(English) , you will find a detailed outline of the
grammar of LFN.  The basics have not changed in many years, but we
have examined many details of usage in long discussions (documented
in our "archives") and laid out the ways in which LFN deals with
ambiguities of complex communication.  I suppose this could be
considered a "fundamento". We will be adding more examples, and
further developing the LFN version (which is actually the official
grammar) in the next few months.

What has changed is the dictionary. As some of us write articles for
the wiki, or communicate with each other in other ways, we come
across needed words and expressions. Although "rules" for new words
are not written down, there are some clear guidelines, such as
derivation from existing words (with affixes and compounds), similar
words used by all or most of the romance languages, words that are a
part of international scientific vocabulary, words that are tied to
particular cultures (from "taco" to "txaumen"), simple expressions
that can be used, and so on. We have tried to, as much as humanly
possible, to not introduce new words where old ones do the job just
as well.

Please feel free to play with the language, or even create new ones.
But LFN is LFN! :-)

Jorj

No trees were harmed in the creation of this post.  However, many
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.



On Sep 1, 2009, at 6:34 AM, haf_euro_binet wrote:

> I don't think a "Fundamento" is the right way, because that leads
> to the other extreme of unchangeability. The best way I could think
> of is to have an "academy" or committee to approve changes. Then
> there would be "board approved LFN" and thousands of deviations and
> that is a clear landscape for everybody.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]