Re: nitcu

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>]

>Oy! What a design flaw!  What is the point of telling people all they can do
>in the language and then not provide them with any language to do it with?
> Boy am I sorry I did not pay more attention to this book as it was going
>into its final form. 

Design flaw?  Not hardly.  the various wordlists are going to be the dictionary,
and sooner, the pocket dictionary.  Lojban has gotten far too big to be covered
by a single book (with Appendices).  We've made up for this considerably by
having the extensive indexing, so that I suspect that any cmavo used IN THE 
BOOK is also in the index and can be found in some referenced table in the section in which it is discussed.

The pocket dictionary will run a couple of hundred pages.  We could not
have afforded to add that much to the refgrammar.  We plan to put out the
pocket dictionary as soon as we have paid off the refgrammar, if not sooner.

(Putting the stuff in an appendix awould also have been redundant to the
other books which will still be needed and desired by anyone seriously 
planning to look at the language.  Peopl are not likely to haul the tome
around in their briefcase (or purse), but will more likely plant it
by their computer.

BTw

1) Please comment on the negation issue.  I think I am right, but then Jorge
as usual has a counter argument %^)

2)  Nora and I have to recuse ourselves from a key board decision.  We have
to write a check for the printing.  We actually have enough for the down
payment, or at least close enough that I can make it work even if the flow
of orders doesn't continue (though the Lojban bank account will be drained).

However in another month or so when the books are ready for delivery, we will
have to come up with another $9-10K or so, and I do not anticipate that we will
sell that many books in advance.  Nora and I have the money in our savings
account and can loan it to LLG, but I have a confliuct of interest in deciding
on terms of said loan.  Part of me says that it would be unfair for me to
demand anything other than what anyone else is demanding from LLG - money they
put into their accounts is promised to be refunded, withotu interest.  But in
reality of course, if all people did so we would be bankrupt, since our
obligations (JL subscriptions plus refundable balances) is at least $2K more
than our bank account.  For this large a sum of money, Nora and I cannot
afford to take equal priority with others (even though i suspect that in the
final analysis, if we went bankrupt, it would be Nora and I that would
make up the differences to refund balances etc).

On the BIG other hand, I do not want to be like JCB and have this big loan
to hang over the head of LLG, thereby giving me the inherent right as creditor
to run the organization, rather than whatever delegated "right" I have as
president (which is revokable by the members and/or the Board).

The suggestion that seems to have evolved from discussions with Dave barton
and Cowan (the other two non-recused Board members) is that, using an on-paper
loan agreement, that the loan earn roughly the interest I would make on the
savings account, so we would not lose money, but the loan would be unsecured
except possibly by any unsold copies of the books (for whatever they might be
worth).  This leaves open the conditions under which I would as creditor
be forced to write off the loan, gives LLG some financial wiggle independent
of me in return for minimal interest.

Cowan says this sounds fair.  Barton says that I am being too generous, as LLG
would likely have to pay substantiall more than prime on a business loan
as
well as meet various criteria that we might have trouble meeting in order to
qualify for the loan at all.

Ideally of course, we will sell $10K of books within a year (hey its only
260 books or so) and be able to pay off the loan, and therw ill be little
question of what to do oif it is not paid back.  But then we want to put out
those other books and not have to wait a year to do so (the pocket dictionary
is next6 because it is probably the cheapest of the books as well as easiest
to put together - we already have a draft because Nora and I have used one
around here for a few years).

But I feel badly because Cowan is not taking royalties amd even 3-4% would
have given him as much money as the interest is likely to be.

What is your opinion/vote with respect to all this (we don;t need to be
formal about it unless people want to do so - I think I can sign a loan
agreement with myself, but will not do so without a sense of the Board's
desire).

lojbab