BPFK Checkpoints

See baupla fuzykamni and BPFK Procedures.

Current Checkpoint

Attitudinals

• Digressives SEI SEhU TO TOI (Shepherd: Jorge Llambias)
• Realis Attitudinals UI1realis (Shepherd: Jorge Llambias)

• Irrealis Attitudinals UI1irrealis (Shepherd: Jorge Llambias)
• Evidentials UI2 (Shepherd: Arnt Johansen)

• Discursives UI3 (Shepherd: Arnt Johansen)
• Text Structure Discursives UI3a UI3c UI6 (Shepherd: Jorge Llambias)

• Highlight Discursives UI3b (Shepherd: Jorge Llambias)
• Attitudinal Specifiers UI4 UI7 FUhE FUhO (Shepherd: Adam Lopresto)

• Attitudinal Modifiers UI5 (Shepherd: Theodore Reed)
• Intensifiers CAI (Shepherd: Theodore Reed)

• Vocatives COI DOI DOhU (Shepherd: Jorge Llambias)

Previous Checkpoints

• BPFK Checkpoint: BAI #1, Completed 16 Jun 2005
• BPFK Checkpoint: Magic Words #1, Completed 11 Feb 2005.

• BPFK Checkpoint: gadri #1, completed 25 Dec 2004 (Christmas present).
• BPFK Checkpoint: Letterals #1, completed 17 March 2004.

• BPFK Checkpoint: Aspect #1, completed 24 May 2004.

Proposed Future Checkpoints

Morphology

This has been deferred due to not being as done as I thought.

• BPFK Section: PEG Morphology Algorithm Jorge Llambias
• By extension, Controversial points in the morphology

• Both are linked from BPFK Section: Formal Morphology

Erasures

While the interactions of all the other magic words were ironed out

in the Magic Words checkpoint, a rather interesting counter-proposal

for SA was suggested. We're going to need to play with it a bit

more and decide on it later.

• Erasures SI SA SU

Poor CEI

CEI got left out of subordinators by accident; should do a definition for it too.

Pro-sumti

Deferred due to lack of interest.

Sections

• Logical Variables KOhA1
  • Not sure this one belongs here. Let the jatna know if you have an opinion one way or the other.

• Utterance Pro-sumti KOhA2
• Personal Pro-sumti KOhA3

• Anaphoric Pro-sumti KOhA4 KOhA5 KOhA6
• Grammatical Pro-sumti KOhA7 KOhA8

Far future: Experimental cmavo

In response to xorxes' handling of the xa'o issue in the first Aspect checkpoint, the jatna has decided that when most everything else is wrapped up, we'll have a checkpoint just for figuring out how many experimental cmavo have been seriously reccomended by Shepherds for official status. As such, the jatna strongly reccomends that Shepherds do not include experimental cmavo in their proposals, but instead include links to experimental cmavo that they consider potentially worthy of official status.

Far future: Pre-Rump Mega-Vote

At some point, the BPFK needs to declare itself finished with producing cmavo definitions and whatever else it ends up doing. IOW, it needs to get to the point where the entire group can look at the language and say, "OK, *that* is a well-specified language". This is not to occur until after every section has been in a completed checkoint. It then devolves into a rump committee for future unforseen emergencies.

When this blessed time period seems to have arrived, the jatna will call for the Pre-Rump Mega-Vote. This will be a non-time-limited mass discussion in which every single section of the language is open for debate, to continue until consensus minus one is reached. The goal is to iron out any outstanding conflicts between sections. Hopefully this won't take long. The jatna reserves the right to place time limits on "No" votes without reasons attached, i.e. if you claim that you simply need more time to read up, and everyone else is done, the jatna may give you a time limit of some kind.