[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban



I'll answer more in detail soon, but in the meantime, can you tell us more about "Group 3 consist[ing] of some incompatible groups"? Which subgroups, actually?
ki'e

la .sykyndyr.


Le 16 novembre 2017 17:06:11 CET, guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> a écrit :


Le mercredi 15 novembre 2017 09:38:00 UTC, Benoit Neil a écrit :
And, you told that there are 3 groups. If I rephrase:
  1. CLL 1.1 "purists", who want to "throw away" what has been learned
  2. The ones who want to "bug fix" CLL regarding to logic.
  3. 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.


 
I regard that And Rosta is one of the great contributors for refining the theory behind Lojban, but he seems to take a distance from the current active Lojban speakers. He once kindly gave me his thoughts on my documetary film {lo vliraitru}, but I guess he doesn't know much about the current 2nd or 3rd group.

I also take a distance from active speakers, but I still observe the community from time to time. Here are what I understand according to the observation.

- Group 2 and Group 3 consist mostly of the same people. That is to say, There are few people in Group 2 who are not in Group 3. Group 3 consists of some incompatible groups. The members of Group 3 have agreement on "bug fix"-ing the CLL regarding to logic.

- Group 1 should permit "adding grammatical mechanisms" without changing the existing mechanism, because it is clearly permitted in Section 4.2 of the CLL. However, it seems to me that some people in Group 1 don't accept any new grammatical mechanisms.

Now, Group 3, including Group 2, should "perform first common steps altogether", but it isn't the case: there is poor progress in "bug fix"-ing. I observed again the BPFK meeting, and recognized some points that might be useful for considering the solution of problems.


Summary.
1. Discussions for removing grammatical defects were more active than those for removing semantic defects. See Observations 1 and 3 below.
2. Discussions for removing semantic defects are always stopped at some stage, no voting, and buried in many other topics of simple Q&As. See Observations 3 and 4 below.
3. The Lojban Coders' Group has no intention of cooperating with BPFK. See Observation 2.1 below.


Suggestion.
Summary 1 and 2 suggest that we need an easy-to-use working system, where the members clearly see what to be put for voting, what to be discussed, what are important, what are unimportant.
Summary 3 suggests a problem more difficult to solve. Some members of BPFK are members of the Lojban Coders' Group. They don't distinguish missions of BPFK from voluntary services. I have no idea to change their mind.


Observations.
1. Some defects in grammar were discussed and voting occurred.

Examples:
1.1. YACC to PEG
(discussion from 2015-11-17 to 2016-05-19)
In order to remove some defects in grammar, it is necessary to make the grammar written in PEG official, because YACC is less expressive than PEG [Note 1]. 
There was a stubborn resistant, but voting occurred. As a result, The proposal that the grammar written in PEG should be official got the majority.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-list/A8qyiW7Uod8/GN7F-pZXCgAJ
However, I didn't see any official declaration about the result.

1.2. ([{lo <nu (¹broda VAU¹) KEI> KU} CU] [{ba brode} VAU])
(discussion from 2015-11-16 to 2016-03-15)
Most members agreed that it should be official and voted for it. The result was declared:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-list/A8qyiW7Uod8/jRLrsM9WDQAJ
https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK:_lo_nu_broda_ba_brode


2. Not all modifications to the grammar were put for voting.

Examples:
2.1. {broda be ba brode}
(discussion from 2016-02-23 to 2016-04-06)
It becomes ungrammatical under the agreement 1.2 above.
The proposal of making it grammatical again by modifying some parts of the grammar was not accepted by some people including me, and the discussion stopped without voting.
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/kXZ5aBNPI_A/discussion

However, the Lojban Coders' Group made it grammatical on Camxes on 2016-03-27, and it is still valid:
https://github.com/lojban/ilmentufa/commit/e9f578607dcc1a1dddfa8f9132175f5bc22c7b4d#diff-373e39fcf7056e72d5e0e4cdab4068f3
Even after the voting for the above proposal 1.1 of making PEG grammar official, that Camxes is modified little by little without consulting BPFK, though called "camxes: standard" on the parser page:
https://github.com/lojban/ilmentufa/commits/master/camxes.peg
http://lojban.github.io/ilmentufa/camxes.html

That fact shows that any decisions by BPFK have no influence to the contents created by the Lojban Coders' Group, still the Lojban Coders' Group is deceiving users into believing that their "camxes: standard" reflected the official grammar.

2.2. {ni'o .i}
(discussion from 2016-03-11 to 2016-03-30)
The idea of making it grammatical was discussed and mostly agreed but no voting occurred. Maybe the topic was not very important for the members of BPFK.
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/nk049jbIBlQ/discussion


3. Defects in semantics are discussed but voting has never occurred.
Examples:
3.1. Removing defects in meaning of {na}
(discussion from 2016-06-23 to 2016-07-02)
Most people agreed, some did not, and the discussion was stopped for no reason.
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/svR3FuAr0pA/discussion

3.2. meaning of {bridi}
(discussions: from 2014-10-07 to 2014-10-09; from 2016-01-19 to 2016-05-30)
It was once agreed by 2014-10-09 that {bridi} is relationship of meanings, not of symbols. 
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/yChr3cGT1_Q/discussion
It was discussed again in 2016, mostly agreed again, but no voting occurred.
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/V1TNzpGE3XI/discussion

3.3. meaning of causation sumtcita
(discussion from 2015-05-13 to 2015-06-17)
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/FdM1mYXfn3s/discussion
It was discussed, the document was given, but no voting occurred.


4. There are many simple Q&A that don't require voting.
Examples:
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/CLJ21LkJ9jw/discussion
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/rHreOMRRpKs/discussion
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/wz5_QcTTC8U/discussion
and many more.


[Note 1]
Such an example is explained at 35m15s of the documentary video:
https://vimeo.com/190637628#t=2115s


mu'o mi'e la guskant

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 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.