And, you told that there are 3 groups. If I rephrase:
- CLL 1.1 "purists", who want to "NOT throw away" what has been learned
- The ones who want to "bug fix" CLL regarding to logic.
- The ones who want to "upgrade" CLL.
It is not clear to me if 2nd and 3rd ideas would break up many things (thus forcing to "re-learn" when having learned CLL 1.1), or only details. Somebody has clues on this?
(And yes, each potential change would have to be evaluated on that question.)Aside from that, I feel that the 2nd and 3rd group should agree to perform first common steps altogether. Isn't it the case? If not, why?la .sykyndyr.
Le lundi 13 novembre 2017 16:44:47 UTC+1, And Rosta a écrit :On 8 Nov 2017 12:54, "Timothy Lawrence" <timothy....@connect.qut.edu.au > wrote:> We have long known that CLL Lojban is not logically unambiguous, is not internally consistent,
What do you mean?CLL does not give complete and consistent rules for unambiguously mapping Lojban sentences to logical forms. For folk for whom Lojban's purportedly being a logical language is its paramount property, that is a big deal.Is there something that documents this?I don't know. It's certainly there in the mail archives and antique wiki pages. Selpahi read through 25 years of email and wiki discussion in order to understand the issues.My sense is that the folk who care about logic are more interested simply in mending the language rather than in creating documents that focus on explaining in one place all the problems with CLL Lojban, but there may well be newer expository stuff I don't know about.A complicating factor is that not only is the community divided into those who care about logic and those who don't (and can therefore favour CLL Lojban), those who care about logic are in turn divided into those who want to make the minimum changes to CLL Lojban to sort out the logical issues and those who think that if you're going to make any changes at all then you might as well fix some of the most egregious design flaws in order to make the language much more user-friendly. Essentially the two positions weigh the effort invested by the few people who have learnt CLL thoroughly against the much larger but more hypothetical number who might learn and use Lojban in future.
> is not complete,
I agree and would like to help complete it.This is the job of the BPFK, but not much progres is visible from that group.In my view, xorxes and selpahi should simply define bodies of candidate new rules and changes and the rest of the BPFK or community or LLG should vote on them by some suitably intelligent voting method. You could make it more democratic by allowing anyone to submit proposed changes, but I would be inclined to vote for exactly whatever xorxes and selpahi propose. Those innovations elected would be deemed to supersede CLL where there is incompatibility. And then textbook writers can write it up. Admittedly, that already happened for xorlo, but nobody has yet textbooked it.--And.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/ .unsubscribe
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout .