MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+j3O7Myqx7ebEDMne4mhBBUSDs_7uPRZ6QyPRpdsNXnGw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO7bV+gJqYc7gCvef38a86F7=X1oq3XfV12NsQ71k=1VFa-ZjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <54B2A1F6.5090105@lojban.org>
 <CAO7bV+j3O7Myqx7ebEDMne4mhBBUSDs_7uPRZ6QyPRpdsNXnGw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:17:31 +0300
Message-ID: <CAO7bV+iwgpe509=h0QthHnVHMXB4_ngdZowwAo76B_LdyVcO0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Spam_score: 3.1
X-Spam_score_int: 31
X-Spam_bar: +++
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software,
 running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", 
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details.
 Content preview: IRC log. Let me try to paste it here. All dates are in PST.
 2015-01-11 20:39 GMT+03:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > > So here is my list in order
 of priority: > 1. So the top priority for me is CLL, version 1.1. > That's
 what was mostly discussed. [...] 
 Content analysis details:   (3.1 points, 5.0 required)
 pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
 See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
 for more information. [URIs: bit.ly]
 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL    RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org
 [listed in gmail.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org.	IN] [A]
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3      RBL: Good reputation (+3)
 [74.125.82.177 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
 (gleki.is.my.name[at]gmail.com)
 2.4 HK_SCAM_S7             BODY: No description available.
 0.0 DIET_1                 BODY: Lose Weight Spam
 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 [score: 0.0000]
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
 domain
 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
 not necessarily valid
 0.0 LOTS_OF_MONEY          Huge... sums of money
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL      Mailspike good senders
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:23:36 -0800
Subject: Re: [Llg-members] January 18 2015 IRC meeting logs
X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: <llg-members.lojban.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/options/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/>
List-Post: <mailto:llg-members@lojban.org>
List-Help: <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0157905491589542424=="
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

--===============0157905491589542424==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141a160d1e6e3050cfc1e84

--089e0141a160d1e6e3050cfc1e84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

IRC log. Let me try to paste it here. All dates are in PST.

2015-01-11 20:39 GMT+03:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>:

>
> So here is my list in order of priority:
> 1. So the top priority for me is CLL, version 1.1.
>
That's what was mostly discussed.


> 2. The next must be the hosting in case ma'a lose the current one. Other
> issues depend on having a website. That's why it's important.
>

Not relevant since Robin said he would continue providing hosting.


Now the log. A copy is at http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=3DFsAq8JEC

07:50 < selpahi> doi la .xorxes. do ma jinvi lo si'o rafsi joi lo si'o
lujvo .i xu do pu troci lo ka mo'icli ro rafsi .i xu jinvi lo du'u plixau
07:50 < mukti> 10 minutes. Sending out my BPFK proposal to the llg-members
mriste.
07:50 < gleki> lo nu morji ro da na dunli lo nu morji so'i da
07:50 < selpahi> .i mi pu za stidi lo du'u vimcu lo rafsi
07:50 < selpahi> .u'e
07:51 < selpahi> li'a doi la gleki
07:51 < gleki> ju'osai so'o lo rafsi ka'e plixau
07:51 < selpahi> ju'o
07:51 < xorxes> doi la selpa'i mi na pu troci lo ka cilre .i mi troci lo ka
rivbi lo lujvo
07:52 < selpahi> .a'u .i mi ca'o simsa
07:52 < menli> mi pu simsa zukte ca lo nu mi nintadni
07:52 < selpahi> .i mi pu zu pilno so'i za'e zei lujvo gi'e ja'e bo rarna
mo'icli so'i rafsi .i ku'i ca ku mi jinvi lo drata
07:52 < menli> .i mi pu se tcaci lo ka tolcafne fa lo nu ce'u lo lujvo cu
pilno
07:52 < gleki> i ku'i mu'a zo muvdygau zo'u lo'u jai gau ui ge'e u'i bu'o
muvdu fai le'u vlipa zmadu i za'adai mi pu setca so'isai valsi
07:53 < mungojelly> coi jai daspo zo'o be la .lojban.
07:54 < gleki> no'i va'i mi xusra lo du'u lo lujvo na kakne pe'a tu'a lo
infiksi valsi
07:54 < gleki> i nabmi
07:54 < gleki> i ku'i lo rarbau cu simsa
07:54 < mungojelly> .i li'a lo lujvo ciste cu plixau .i mutce plixau .i
melbi ciste .i ko skudji lo se du'u na'e ba'e banzu plixau .i ju'o cu'i
na'e banzu tu'a do .i ku'i li'a plixau je cinri ciste
07:54 < selpahi> zo'o sai .ei lo pa moi rolrafcre cu jdice lo du'u xu kau
vimcu
07:54 < menli> ku'i la logji zbabu na monsuta .i ma krinu lo nu .ei terpa
07:55 < selpahi> mi na toltugni doi la jduli
07:55 < gleki> ti'e lylygy du'eva'e sazri le bangu
07:56 < selpahi> li no ni sazri pe'i
07:57 < mungojelly> selpahi: cafne fa lo nu lo jibni be lo ka jbocretce cu
cinmo lo simsa be lo se cinmo be do za'a pu
07:57 < mukti> BPFK proposal, as sent to llg-members@, posted here:
http://jukni.digitalkingdom.org/~mukti/bpfk.txt
07:58 < gleki> xu la camgusmis na ba zvati
07:58 < selpahi> ba'a ja'a go'i
07:59  * banseljaj realizes how horribly rust his lojban is and opens valsi
in a private window
07:59 < banseljaj> rusty*
07:59 < mungojelly> .i la .camgusmis. .i'i cu za'a co'u zgana lo ma'a
malklu mabla ra'u .i'e .au
07:59 < mungojelly> banseljaj: should i speak english perhaps?
08:00 < banseljaj> I would appreciate it...
08:00 < mungojelly> i'll move my ranting to #jbosnu :)
08:00 < mungojelly> banseljaj: how are you today? :)
08:00 < banseljaj> snu-snu
08:00 < mukti> I'm really enjoying youre presence, mungojelly -- how have
you kept up your lojban all this time?
08:00 < Fauve> coi lo rodo
08:00 < banseljaj> I'm goiid.
08:00 < mukti> coi la cilce
08:00 < banseljaj> good*
08:00 < banseljaj> How be you?
08:01 < banseljaj> How be everyone else here?
08:01 < Fauve> mukti: you remember my name =3D)
08:01 <@xalbo> mi se xamgu
08:01 < mungojelly> mukti: uhhhh man geez well. the past decade i went
through a thing so terrible i call it "la mabla". mostly i wasn't able to
succeed at much of anything for that whole time.
08:01 <@xalbo> I good.
08:02 < selpahi> fi'i la .guskant.
08:02 < mukti> mungojelly: "la mabla" is evocative enough!
08:02 < guskant> ki'e coi la selpa'i
08:02 < mungojelly> mukti: now i'm doing various things now that stuff is
better, actually getting to a deep fluency in lojban is what i'm working on
right now. except not RIGHT this second, when i'm working on my english,
sigh.
08:02 < mukti> coi ui la .guskant.
08:02 < guskant> coi la mukti
08:03 < mungojelly> fi'i .guskant.
08:03 < guskant> ui coi la telselkik
08:03 < menli> ua fi'i
08:03 < menli> ui
08:04 < durka42> coi
08:05 < menli> za'a li pa tcika fo lo ponjo gugde
08:05 < mukti> Has anybody been in touch with lojbab to confirm his
presence today?
08:05 < durka42> mukti: I sent an email to llg-members at 3am, does that
count
08:06 < xorxes> li pa tcika fo lo gento ji'a u'
08:06 < mungojelly> i learned lojban through a series of periods of intense
study, i guess
08:06 < mukti> durka42: I saw that. A good idea to do that ahead of time.
08:06 < durka42> menli: za'a la .guskant. ta'enai sipna vau .u'i
08:06 < banseljaj> mukti: I just saw. Good work.
08:06 < mukti> ki'e la banseljaj
08:06 < guskant> mi no'e sipna
08:07 < menli> coi .i .a'e nai pei
08:07 < mungojelly> one period of course was the "la tcati tcika" period,
during that time i was speaking lojban out loud for at least a half hour a
day, that's when i first started to have any fluency speaking
08:07 < selpahi> mukti: "Membership in LLG or ___ will not be considered a
requirement for this position."  something missing?
08:07 < selpahi> BPFK?
08:07 < mukti> Oops.
08:07 < menli> ..oi dai
08:07 < menli> mi zo'u ca'o tcidu
08:07 < mukti> Yes, that was my thinking when I composed that part, but
would be open to thoughts.
08:08 < selpahi> I like that part
08:08 < mukti> Partly I'm just concerned with the fact that currently
"membership" is BPFK is very poorly defined.
08:08 < mungojelly> when i started trying to record la tcati tcika, hm well
it's hard to record a solid half hour of audio on any topic in any language
so i was learning both at once, but at first i really couldn't string
sentences together, i was so lost
08:09 < xorxes> loi la lojbab
08:09 < xorxes> coi
08:09 < durka42> mukti: so there's a lot in the proposal about selecting a
chair. but what about fixing the nebulous membership problem?
08:09 < selpahi> mukti: The role of BPFKJ isn't specified, is it?
08:09 < durka42> coi la lojbab
08:09 < selpahi> fi'i la .lojbab.
08:10 < mukti> durka42: My thought is that BPFK should be empowered to set
such policies. It's my personal hope that a policy like membership would be
clear, but I want to avoid the current situation where LLG dictates tons of
conditions to BPFK.
08:10 < durka42> gotcha
08:10 < mukti> selpahi: Do you mean in the current policy?
08:10 < selpahi> In your proposal
08:10 < mukti> coi la lojbab
08:10 < lojbab> coi
08:11 < menli> coi
08:11 < guskant> coi
08:11 < menli> .i mi'e la .ilmen. i .ei pei cmene cenba
08:12 < Ilmen> ue coi la .noras. fi'i sai
08:12 < mukti> selpahi: Yes, that's underspecified. My thinking on that is
along the lines of membership -- BPFK could write the detailed policy. The
main purpose of the BPFKJ role is to act as the recognized liaison with LLG=
.
08:12 < xorxes> coi la noras
08:12 < mukti> coi la .noras.
08:12 < durka42> I don't see how that differs from the current situation
08:12 < durka42> which is fine
08:12 < durka42> seems to me the main important difference is this proposal
gives the BPFK an actual mission to do with dialects
08:12 < banseljaj> coi fi'i la lojbab
08:13 < durka42> coi la rosta
08:13 < xorxes> coi la and
08:13 < mukti> durka42: The term limit and lack of constraints like
consensus minus one, or any of the numerous constraints on the business or
order of business are different.
08:13 < gleki> coi la lojbab. .e la noras.
08:13 < mukti> coi la .and.
08:13 < durka42> je'e
08:13 < Ilmen> coi la .and.
08:13 < durka42> you are obviously more familiar with the current rules
than I am
08:14 < guskant> coi la noras coi la.and
08:14 < And2> Am I in the right place at the right time?
08:14 < Ilmen> Yes, you are.
08:14 < mukti> You are!
08:14 < Ilmen> Welcome :)
08:14 < lojbab> OK.  There seems to be some discussion about mukti's
proposal, which was posted to the member's list.  Are there any other
proposals that are being referred to?
08:15 < Ilmen> That's the main topic of discussion at the moment.
08:15 < gleki> may be we should somehow discuss the future of CLL?
08:16 < banseljaj> The future of CLL, The future of the language itself and
the mukti proposal
08:17 < lojbab> I have in mind several topics, which include the future of
byfy and the future of CLL.  But I wanted to see what was already being
talked about.
08:17 < mukti> gleki: I would also like to discuss CLL, including
discussing what connection if any between BPFK and CLL
08:17 < banseljaj> Someone should moderate.
08:17 < selpahi> Should the mediawiki be discussed at all today?
08:17 < durka42> all hail mediawiki
08:18 < lojbab> I can add it to a list of topics, but I don't know what it
is.
08:18 < gleki> mukti: how to become a member of BPFK acc. to this proposal?
08:18 < gleki> Since robin isnt here how can we discuss mediawiki? We can
only vote for/against making it official but since few members are familiar
with it may be I first should present its advantages?
08:19 < mukti> gleki: It's my hope that the BPFK would establish clear
policies on membership. One of the defects {pe'i} of the current policy is
that LLG heavily specifies all BPFK activity, including membership.
08:19 < lojbab> Is Robin present?  He is of course the one who knows what
he is doing right now with CLL and Lightning Source.
08:20 < gleki> mukti: should i drop the proposal regarding mediawiki to the
mailing list? does it even matter now?
08:20 < banseljaj> lojbab: rlpowell has been tagged but I don't see any
recent activity from him. He is probably asleep.
08:20 < lojbab> I had not yet called the vote on the proposal to fund his
efforts, so I want to get any discussion of CLL republication out of the
way first,
08:21 < mukti> gleki: I think the proposal matters, since it is good to get
the will of the community.
08:21 < mungojelly> I know none of you can actually be bothered to fully
process my opinions about this because they're strange, but I feel I should
point out to you again that in deciding membership you are also deciding
the entirety of who's subject to your decisions. You can or should only
autonomously decide about your own actions. OK well good feel free to
ignore that then yay.
08:21 < banseljaj> I vote to fund robin's efforts.
08:21 < durka42> thanks for your input mungojelly
08:21 < gleki> I vote to fund robin's efforts too.
08:22  * gleki Although i already voted in the mriste
08:22 < durka42> me too, though I thought we weren't voting today
08:22 < noras> Can't do voting here since not member-only.  Besides, it was
already voted and seconded.
08:22 < banseljaj> If it's not much trouble, we can move to a member-only
room.
08:23 < selpahi> I prefer open discussions
08:24 < gleki> Btw I offered today's meeting to be logged (even the part
not spoken in Lojban) and to be copied to llg-members list. Probably I'll
have to delete messages from non-members
08:24 < durka42> seems like a good idea
08:24 < Ilmen> If I'm not mistaken, this IRC session is intended to reach
mutual agreement, not for formally voting :)
08:24 < lojbab> Specifically, since Robin says that his republication will
likely cost much less than the proposed $2000, do we want to consider any
promotion.  Also if publication through LS is not an exclusive agreement,
do we want to simultaneoisly find Print on Demand publishers in Europe and
possibly Oz, which would substantially cheapen the costs to non-US buyers
(the current CLL weighs around 2.6 lbs 1.2kg, and the postage costs to
Europe are
08:25 < durka42> (cut off after "Europe are")
08:25 < durka42> Oz? does that mean Australia?
08:25 < lojbab> There is no voting, in part because even figuring out who
is present for quorum is  hard.
08:26 < mukti> FWIW, I count 11 members
08:26 < lojbab> remainder of my last::  postage costs to Europe are as much
as the costs of the book
08:26 < lojbab> Oz =3D australia
08:26 < gleki> Strange. Dont they have printing facilities in other
countries?
08:27 < lojbab> to be distinguished from az the member'
08:27 < durka42> :)
08:27 < mukti> Perhaps it would be worth considering a subsidy to reduce
the price of foreign shipments until overseas printing is established.
08:27 < And2> Does LS print in US and then expensively ship overseas?
08:27 < gleki> mukti: oh, i missed your message. Okay, dropping the post
about mediawiki into the llg-members mailing list now. It'll be rather
tech-centric.
08:28 < lojbab> I don't know where they have printing.  We don't even get
info on who is buying the books.
08:28 < gleki> We should probably find another service.
08:28 < guskant> lojbab: I have seen several people who wanted to buy the
book
08:29 < gleki> banseljaj: we wont discuss your proposal today?
08:29 < lojbab> I don't know enough about how LS works to know if there is
a mechanism to subsidize overseas shipping.
08:29 < guskant> lojban: in Japan
08:29 < gleki> banseljaj: the position of project manager
08:29 < banseljaj> I was wiating for an opportunity to bring it up
08:29 < banseljaj> as part of the BPFK discussion
08:29 < banseljaj> :D
08:29 < durka42> the lightning source website mentions "global distribution
channels"
08:30 < durka42> I'm not clear on where they ship from
08:30 < gleki> This is how they should work. They should ship from the
nearest department where the books are printed
08:30 < banseljaj> The moon? Someone should go and ask them about it.
08:31 < lojbab> Project mamanger proposal is on the list for possible
discussion, but is further down, because it is new business, and doesn't
get called for consoideration until after the old business which is CLL and
byfy.  Any future logfests, per Pierre's postings, would also be new
business
08:31 < gleki> Btw, another proposal (a rivl to project manager position)
is spending money on IT-projects instead. Like glossers (machine
translation), writing ditionaries etc.
08:32 < gleki> writing  dictionaries isn't IT-related, sorry.
08:33 < lojbab> Such a proposal, gleki, would be new business.
Dictionaries could be IT-related if we decided to make dictionary
production an automated thing.
08:34 < lojbab> For consideration of all finance questions, bear in mind
that mukti just reported that we have around $16K US.  We normally get less
than $2K a year income, I think (mukti may be able to verify) and this may
decrease wioth the book coming out via LS.
08:34 < guskant> bilingual periodical is also a kind of new business
proposal
08:35 < mungojelly> New business can't be considered before old business,
nothing can be voted on even though everyone's present, this is obviously
obstructionist!? What *is* the agenda.
08:35 < banseljaj> mungojelly: it was my understanding that we are here so
we can have a faster paced discussion and then vote and stuff in the mriste
08:36 < gleki> Sure, I was trying to recall everything that could be
discussed.
08:36 < gleki> *I was just trying
08:36 < mukti> mungojelly: the order of business was advertised at the
beginning of the meeting, and is consistent with how meetings have been run
in the past
08:36 < lojbab> I am not trying to be obstructionist, but nothing gets
voted on in these sessions.  Just real-time discussion.  We don't have to
exclude new business, but it sounds like there are many topics, so I
suggest we tryy old business only at first.
08:36 < lojbab> We likely will need another session, if this one goes well.
08:38 < lojbab> to coverall of the topics that have been raised.  I think I
said that I want to limit things to 2 hours, possibly extending to 3 hours.
08:39 < mukti> Net income for last three years: $783.70 (2012), $895.94
(2013), $1919.72 (2014)
08:39 < b_jonas> coi la lojbab
08:39 < lojbab> So first of all, without Robin here, I would likemembers,
presumably in Europe (and possibkly az in oz and guskant in Japan) to see
if there are any publish-on-demand publishers that could do a CLL
publication.
08:40 < mukti> Is .az. in Oz?
08:40 < lojbab> I think so,
08:41 < b_jonas> ue how did you get mungojelly back? he said he left
because he wants only lojbau conversation
08:42 < durka42> mukti: Robin said that selling the CLL through LS will net
significantly lower profits, so presumably that income will go down once
Amazon runs out of CLLs?
08:42 < Ilmen> Nick Nicholas/Robin Turner's textbook is "Lojban for
Beginners", is that correct?
08:42 < selpahi> Yes
08:42 < Ilmen> Seems so
08:43 < b_jonas> I mean left for #jbosnu
08:43 < lojbab> Ilmen: yes.  We can discuss publishing that as new
business, but it probably needs at least a little revision.
08:44 < durka42> it needs xorlo revision, at least
08:44 < mukti> durka42: If Robin says it is less profitable, it must be so.
I'm of the opinion that at the present, profitability is less of a concern
than keeping the book in print, so I would favor taking whatever path keeps
us in print in the short term, and optimizing profitability later.
08:44 < mungojelly> b_jonas: i felt like it'd be snubbing this meeting to
have this be the one day in a long time i hadn't been here. :D but it's
true, i'll be found more in #jbosnu from now on. i need exposure to lojban
mostly to improve my fluency, i'm practicing thinking in lojban.
08:44 < durka42> mukti: yeah that makes sense
08:45 < lojbab> The question of profitbility is not necessarily important,
but we have to think about our total dollars to spend on all projects,
bearing in mind that income is very small.
08:46 < gleki> What did Robin suggest as an alternative? Amazon's
CreateSpace?
08:46 < lojbab> I don't know that any alternatives were suggested,
08:46 < mukti> lojbab: Agreed. It's important not to assume the current
surplus as an ongoing constant.
08:47 < gleki> ti'e CreateSpace can be shipped from Europe.
08:47 < lojbab> We have a current arrangement with LS, and thus Robin knows
how to publish through them, in hardcover (since people want CLL to be
hardcover).  Back when we first looked at LS,maybe a dozen years ago, some
others were considered.
08:48 < lojbab> But I doubt if whatever was found out would be all that
relevant.
08:50 < banseljaj> lojbab: We have to consider the ebook publication as
well. Since we might have that as a revenue stream
08:51 < lojbab> Which ebook is that?  Or are you saying that CLL shoould be
published as an ebook as well (maybe Robin is already planning this, but I
have seen no mention thereof)
08:52 < mukti> I'd very much like to see CLL available as an ebook, and I
think that will improve sails.
08:52 < mukti> s/sails/sales/
08:53 < banseljaj> lojbab: rlpowell  s planning CLL as an ebook as well.
08:53 < guskant> I agree to the idea of ebook.
08:53 < mukti> That said, I see that as an enhancement, and maintain that
the most important thing to do right now is to ensure that it stays in
print.
08:53 < guskant> I have already published a book in lojban on Google Play.
08:53 < mungojelly> If you're discussing not having a free copy online then
I'd have to stop referring people to that as a text they should read? I'm
not going to tell people they have to buy something? Just saying..
08:53 < lojbab> OK.  Is that done through Lightning Source, or via the
Lojban web page.
08:53 < guskant>
https://play.google.com/store/books/details/akutagaun_riunosuk_guskant_lo_n=
enri_be_lo_spati_de?id=3DhDZ8nls0TNQC
08:53 < mukti> guskant: ue
08:54 < guskant> It cost zero.
08:54 < mungojelly> mukti: guskant's version of "lo nenri be lo spati
denmi" is really gorgeous. beautiful cover photo and everything. i'd like a
printed copy of that, guskant!
08:54 < lojbab> my last was directed at mukti
08:54 < durka42> we are going to have a PDF to send to lightning source
08:54 < durka42> I had assumed that would be available online
08:55 < durka42> just like the current CLL is available online
08:55 < noras> I also would like an on-line copy available
08:55 < durka42> (free of charge, I mean)
08:55 < Ilmen> ua jbobau mutcku
08:55 < banseljaj> mungojelly: I don't think we'll be taking the online
version down
08:55 < mukti> lojbab: Do you mean is the ebook to be done through
Lightning Source? I'm not familiar with the details of Robin's plans. For
my part, I hope that some day CLL is available through the Amazon Kindle.
08:55 < banseljaj> But ebooks, hardbacks and an online (free) reference,
all should be available
08:56 < lojbab> oh sorry, that was banseljaj who said that Robin was
planning an ebook.
08:56 < noras> I believe, though, that the online version has to be
considered because it would need to be updated
08:56 < lojbab> The question then becomes: is this ebook something apart
from the current online version.
08:56 < banseljaj> lojbab: I do not know where we'll be sending the webook.
I assume Google Play books and amazon kindle
08:56 < mukti> I also think there's no reason that it can't be available in
some form free through the web site. There are plenty of examples of
technical books that are available both as open source content and as paid
downloads. People will pay both for the convenience and in order to support
the organization.
08:59 < lojbab> I agree with you, mukti.  I don't think the availability of
the online CLL has seriously affected sales of the hardcover, which of
course has only been a thousand copies over some 18 years.
08:59 < banseljaj> Yeah. I think mukti has got it. Like Learn You A Haskell
08:59 < guskant> banseljaj: Amazon kindle publishing did not accept a book
_in_ Lojban but they should accept a book _in_ English about Lojban.
08:59 <@xalbo> I can easily see both being available, too. A web version
freely accessible, an epub/kindle/whatever "ebook" version available for
offline reading for a nominal fee.
09:00 < banseljaj> guskant: I've seen plenty of absolutely crap books on
amazon kindle. CLL would be a breeze.
09:00 < noras> pe'i: Yes - hardback (it's beautiful), Yes - online (it's
handy when on Web stuff), Yes - ebook (for on the train). It's just how
much can we afford to do the publishing.
09:00 < mukti> guskant: I have submitted a complaint to Amazon about the
limits of the language codes. If we could properly mark lojbanic texts as
JBO, then it would be possible for people to also download a lojban
dictionary marked JBO and to look up words as they read.
09:01 < guskant> banseljaj: sure.
09:01 < guskant> mukti: .ue ki'esai
09:01 < durka42> I was wondering why it was marked Italian
09:01 < mukti> (It's possible to make it work now by abusing other codes --
there are a number of esperanto books that do this.)
09:03 < mukti> I just downloaded {lo nenri be lo spati denmi}. I look
forward to reading it!
09:03 < guskant> mukti: .ui ki'e
09:05 < mukti> .oi have we run out of Ands?
09:05 <@xalbo> I have mixed feelings about selling CLL1.1. I'd like someone
to assuage me. I feel like, to those who aren't intimately connected with
the progress of the language, there might be those who feel like they're
supposed to buy CLL1.0, then CLL1.1, then CLL2.0 when it comes out, and
they see us as money grubbing or something.
09:06 <@xalbo> "Why'd you sell me this, when you knew it was going to be
obsolete so soon?"
09:06 < durka42> mukti: we have reached Peak And
09:06 < noras> doi xalbo: Just be sure they know where the free ones are
and that the changes are not that global.  Maybe a site describing the
changes?
09:07 < gleki> this "so soon" might take years.
09:07 < durka42> I, too, think it's weird to make CLL1.1 a big production
when CLL2.0 is on the way, but we don't know how long it's going to be
until CLL2.0
09:07 < durka42> people still want copies of the CLL, and soon the stocks
of CLL1.0 will run out
09:07 < mukti> xalbo: I think if we explicitly offer a free version, that
would help. lojbab pointed out that it doesn't seem to harm sales. Also,
for those who have purchased e-versions, it's possible to offer free
"upgrades". I have received such upgrades for kindle books.
09:07 < durka42> so that's why we have to print CLL1.1, as I understand it
09:07 < lojbab> So can we get some people to commit to researching and
reporting to the (formal) meeting.  Perhaps mukti on amazon, guskant on
Google Play, and gleki on European possibilities.  Get several proposals
and then discuss picking in the formal meeting.
09:07 < gleki> Anyway indeed I propose remove doubtful parts of CLL like
lerfu shift cmavo and YACC and publish them later in the second volume.
09:08 < noras> um - I USE lerfu chift cmavo and YACC!
09:08 < mukti> I would be happy to research Amazon, but in doing so, want
to make sure I'm not adding to the obstacles to keep CLL currently in print=
.
09:08 < gleki> the same for the dictionary. It can be published as one of
the volumes of CLL.
09:09 < gleki> noras: I'm not saying they arent necessary. They arent fully
specified. We need to describe them better and then publish.
09:09 < fonynenmaj> do'oi mungojelly My idea is essentially to write a set
of rules definine what morphology rafsi are allowed to have, as a function
of what sounds are in it's selrafsi
09:09 < lojbab> Let's just get CLL 1.1 out for now, presumably using
Robin's proof that he is producing for LS.  I think that is the one on
github.
09:09 < durka42> ie
09:10 < mukti>
http://vrici.lojban.org/~rlpowell/media/public/cll_prince_for_lsi.pdf
09:10 < gleki> Now there are many more formatting issues there. It's a long
way until we can come to discussing xorlo and other things.
09:11 < mukti> (I think that's the most recent build -- per Robin's January
5 post to mriste)
09:11 < lojbab> Once we know how hard it is to get all three - hardcopy,
ebook and webbook, we can know what to do for other books.
09:11 < noras> gleki: YACC is not fully specified?
09:12 < gleki> noras: no, I mean  lerfu shift cmavo.
09:13 < mungojelly> noras: lojbab: pardon me for asking, but how much
lojban do you speak? mi mutce lo ka kucli lo ni do jbocre va'i
09:14 < mukti> I think the question about YACC is not about its
specification, but whether it should be included in the next print edition,
per Robin's email to the mriste in October.
09:14 < noras> pu jbocre .i ku'i ca ku na'e certu
09:14 < Ilmen> za'a ca'o certu banzu :)
09:14 < mukti> ie
09:14 < xorxes> YACC requires a pre-parser for the morphology and even part
of the syntax
09:15 < gleki> mukti: I was talking about specification of YACC. Earlier it
was proposed in the main lojban mriste that YACC could be published as a
separate volume. Now I'm proposing to cinlude less specified parts of CLL
into later volumes so that we have time to update them adding new examples.
09:15 < gleki> darn, sorry.
09:15 < durka42> yacc: za'a ca'o certu banzu
09:15 < mensi> (za'a {<ca'o [certu banzu]> VAU})
09:15 < gleki> mukti: I was NOT talking about specification of YACC.
Earlier it was proposed in the main lojban mriste that YACC could be
published as a separate volume. Now I'm proposing to cinlude less specified
parts of CLL into later volumes so that we have time to update them adding
new examples.
09:15 <@xalbo> xorxes: Doesn't even PEG require a pre-parser for ZOI
handling?
09:15 < Ilmen> Wow, Robin's CLL is 704 pages long
09:15 < mungojelly> noras: .i .au fonxa mu'a jikca do'o (I'd like to talk
to y'all on the phone for instance.) .i mi certu binxo sidju .ai sai (I'd
very much like to help you become fluent.)
09:16 < durka42> is that longer than the printed edition?
09:16 < mukti> xalbo: pei it's not a preparser, but the zoi-handling is an
extension to PEG
09:16 <@xalbo> je'e
09:16 < durka42> that's 100 pages longer than the print edition on my desk
09:16 <@xalbo> How much of that is the formal grammars?
09:16 < xorxes> noras: ZOI is not handled by PEG, that's correct
09:17 < durka42> xalbo said that
09:17 < durka42> xalbo: how much of the current CLL, you mean?
09:17 < gleki> 574 pages. After that formal grammars start.
09:17 < Ilmen> In Camxes-js (the javascript implementation of the PEG
grammar), ZOI is handled with injected Javascript code.
09:17 <@xalbo> I'd support excluding them (or making them into a separate
volume.) It seems like that's not the sort of thing that references well
from paper.
09:17 < Ilmen> @ xorxes
09:18 <@xalbo> durka42: Yes, that's what I meant.
09:18 <@xalbo> Or rather, how many of the 704 pages of Robin's pdf.
09:18 < durka42> yeah, in print the grammar are page 511-563
09:18 < mukti> Excluding the formal grammar may also reduce barriers to
getting back in print, since that section will require special formatting
work and make the book more expensive.
09:18 < durka42> after that index
09:18 < lojbab> The YACC grammar including the complete index, is around 40
pages
09:18 < gleki> Robin earlier asked whether he could exclude formal
grammars. Given that they might require additional manual work in
formatting them I suggest that they are printed later.
09:18 < mukti> (what gleki said)
09:19 < lojbab> The EBNf is another 10 pages with index
09:19 < gleki> Also the current snapshot of CLL has examples not well
formatted. May be after he fixes them the resulting size shrinks may be
even by 100 pages.
09:19 < mukti> I'd favor including EBNF but not YACC.
09:20 <@xalbo> Someone remind me why we have both the YACC and the EBNF?
09:20 < durka42> gleki: ie, it's just a proof currently, though I highly
doubt the length will change by 100 pages
09:20 < noras> I think YACC is the official, but EBNF was more familiar to
many and easier to understand recursion.
09:21 < lojbab> Wheras the YACC remains the official form while the EBNF is
secondary.  I personally only use the YACC version, since the EBNF is too
dense for me.  I really do think one YACC construct at a time.
09:21 < mukti> I also find EBNF more readable in the print format. YACC, to
me, is code -- something I am very used to reading, but *not* in print.
09:22 < noras> YACC is official because the grammar was verfied using
actual YACC
09:23 <@xalbo> je'e
09:23 < mukti> I appreciate that since YACC is executable, it provides a
value that EBNF does not. I just don't think print is a good medium to
deliver that value, since print is not executable.
09:24 < guskant> mukti: iesai
09:25 <@xalbo> .ie
09:25 < gleki> ie
09:25 < lojbab> But since we are talking about ebooks and web paes as well,
we aren'treally specifying print only
09:25 < banseljaj> YACC could effectively be a DLC of sorts.
09:25 < durka42> heh
09:25 < noras> DLC ki'a
09:25 < gleki> Ebooks are not different from paperbooks in reading the
code. You still can't execute it.
09:25 < durka42> noras: "downloadable content" that doesn't come with the
initial purchase; video-game term
09:26 <@xalbo> Downloadable content (often for an extra fee, but sometimes
free, content that can be added to a video game after purchase)
09:26 < durka42> does it even matter? are the grammars in Robin's proof? if
they are, then do we need to discuss it
09:26 < mukti> lojbab: I have fewer objections to including YACC in an
electronic edition, since it would not then incur the additional weight and
cost.
09:27 <@xalbo> ie
09:27 < lojbab> durka: true
09:27 <@xalbo> I'm fine with throwing in hte kitchen sink in any electronic
form. But for printed matter, extra pages are extra cost.
09:27 < lojbab> I don't feel all that strongly myself.  Whatever Robin
produces will be CLL 1.1
09:27 < durka42> and trees
09:28 < durka42> won't someone think of the trees
09:28 < mukti> My primary concern is to knock down the obstacles to getting
back into print. To my sensibility, if dropping YACC from the print edition
helps us to get their, it's a nearly painless concession.
09:28 < mukti> s/their/there/
09:28 < gleki> I dont see any problems. Then later we can publish all parts
of CLL in one volume including the dictionary. But since currently we can't
do that we should publish only the most essential part needed for everyone.
Customers will be able to choose in future what to buy: the complete set or
individual volumes.
09:28 < noras> I just consider it a "selling point" for lojban to visibly
show that it is grammatically unambiguous.  Maybe the page count is too
much, but it would at least be useful  to mention *in the book* that the
YACC/EBNF is available
09:28 < durka42> I see the the proof contains the EBNF but not the YACC
grammar
09:28 < durka42> by the way
09:29 < mukti> noras: I agree that it's essential to emphasize that the
grammars are available.
09:30 < mukti> lojban's parseability is an important feature that deserves
continued exposition
09:30 < durka42> which makes it weirder that the proof is 100 pages longer.
I guess it's just page size/margins/etc
09:30 < durka42> we can even mention that there is a PEG!
09:31 < mukti> That's worth discussing too when we move on to BPFK /
Baseline issues. The status of the PEG is not clear.
09:31 < maik_> some improvements the typesetting in the appendices in
Robin's version would reduce the page count significantly.  he is using a
ton of whitespace in places
09:31 < mukti> maik_: I get the impression that Robin would be over the
moon if people sent him some pull requests to improve formatting.
09:31 < lojbab> Some have wanted to replace the YACC grammar with the PEG
grammar as being the standard.  But Nora and I have had problems
understanding the PEG, whjereas we can buildiung Lojban constructs using
ythe YACC grammmar (i.e. the random sentence generator)
09:31 < maik_> i am willing to try to help on this
09:32 < b_jonas> je'e la'o da mungojelly da
09:32 < durka42> I think speech is more important than a random sentence
generator, but I take your point about familiarity
09:32 < gleki> I dont understand YACC. I'm familiar only with PEG.
09:32 < durka42> yeah, it's more about what one was "raised on"
09:32 < Ilmen> mi'u
09:33 < mukti> This is something of a theme for me, but I don't see why we
need to see the PEG as a "replacement" for YACC. It is, however, the formal
grammar that seems to receive the most active attention these days.
09:33 < mukti> And by "these days" I mean for the last decade.
09:33 < durka42> right
09:33 < Ilmen> Does CLL's YACC manage morphology?
09:34 < xorxes> no
09:34 < noras> But if they disagree, which is deemed correct?
09:34 < lojbab> Definitely people getting to work on improving the proof is
a good thing,  I think we are losing Robin because too few have stepped uyp
to help out on a continuing basis.
09:34 < Ilmen> yacc: brydy
09:34 < mensi> (brydy VAU)
09:34 < Ilmen> camxes: brydy
09:34 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "b" found.
09:35 < mukti> noras: I think that question goes to the heart of things. Is
it necessary for there to be a single definition of correctness?
09:36 < noras> Isn't correctness the heart of BYFY?
09:36 <@Broca> ue la lojbab ba'e e la noras
09:36 < durka42> the byfy uses camxes
09:36 < mukti> In practical terms, it seems to me that people have been
long accustomed to navigating disparate standards -- not only when it comes
to the parsers, but they are an especially clear case.
09:36 < Ilmen> coi la'oi Broca
09:36 < mukti> coi la Broca
09:36 < durka42> coi .arnt.
09:37 < mungojelly> In practice the grammar does change regularly. Just
throwing a little random tidbit from the living language Lojban into the
discussion, if that's relevant at all. :/
09:37 < lojbab> broca: for a meeting, I am reasonably sure that someone
will be here %^)
09:38 < Ilmen> In the case where a discrepancy between the parsers' output
is found, that's the job of BPFK to tell which parse is correct, if any :)
09:38 < durka42> or to argue about it, anyway %^)
09:39 < Ilmen> Then, the incorrect grammar will have to be adjusted
accordingly
09:39 < lojbab> Probably, as the BPFK evolves from prescriber to describer,
the difference between parsers will be less important  Right now, the mode
is prescriptive.
09:39 < durka42> sounds like a good segue to talk about the future of byfy
09:40 < lojbab> And any tidbits per mungojelly are not (yet) part of the
prescription.
09:40 < mungojelly> lojbab: OK that's fine, I'm just pointing out, in case
it's relevant to your conversation, that the actual grammar of the spoken
language has changed and will continue to.
09:40 < mukti> durka42: ie
09:41 < lojbab> durka: I agree. But I really would have liked  some
explicit commitments before we drop the CLL discussion, if anyone is
willing to make such.
09:41 < durka42> okay, I don't mean to prematurely change the subject
09:41 < mungojelly> A common topic of conversation among people who
actually speak Lojban regularly is "ugh, but your suggestion would need a
new selma'o." The suggestion is not "which would require asking the BPFK to
formally change the grammar." We informally change the grammar, constantly,
without permission. Make of that what you wish.
09:42 < durka42> you asked for people to commit to researching publication
options
09:42 < durka42> did we get that?
09:42 < guskant> ta'a rodo mide'ajundi ice'obazisipna co'o (to tcika fa li
2:42 .a'enaitoi)
09:42 < gleki> co'o
09:42 < Ilmen> co'o di'ai la ;guskant.
09:42 < durka42> co'o gy
09:42 < Ilmen> =E3=81=8A=E3=82=84=E3=81=99=E3=81=BF=E3=81=AA=E3=81=95=E3=81=
=84
09:42 < lojbab> durka: yes.  I want something from this discussion to make
it back to the formal meeting as well, as motions, etc.  But that doesn't
have to be formal commitment.
09:43 < mungojelly> guskant: ko jbosne doi se sinma
09:43 < mukti> lojbab: I am willing to commit to catching up with Robin on
his research about publication options at Amazon, to supplement that
research as needed, and to report back to the membership.
09:44 < lojbab> mukti: sounds good, and anyone else can supplement with
other possibilities as needed for overseas production.
09:45 < Ilmen> coi la selpa'i
09:45 < noras> Have we general agreement on putting formal grammar chapter
in separate book (with addition of mention of that fact in base CLL)?
09:46 < lojbab> noras: I think that is copvered by the fact that Robin has
included the EBNF in the current proof but not the YACC, so it will have to
be separate,  Exactly HOW it will be issued can be discussed in the regular
meeting.
09:48 < mukti> I would like to suggest that we explicitly give Robin the
discretion to include or exclude YACC, as necessary to expediently prepare
for publication, with the additional proviso that if YACC is not included,
that the availability of YACC is discussed in the edition.
09:48 < lojbab> I will note that we are at 1:45 of this session  Do we want
to break at the hour for another day or continue for up to an additional
hour?
09:48 < durka42> do we need some kind of motion to say the LLG endorses
Robin's proof? it's unclear to me whether that is necessary since we
already moved to authorize the money
09:48 < durka42> (well, epkat moved, but then he resigned, so it's kind of
a ghost motion or something)
09:49 < lojbab> durka: that motion has not yet been voted (and I have not
recognized the resignation so as to allow it to continue until voted upon).
09:49 < Ilmen> I agree with taking out the YACC grammar from CLL1.1 if
deemed beneficial
09:49 < durka42> lojbab: je'e
09:51 < durka42> well I don't have obligations in the next hour and it
might be fun to discuss mukti's BPFK proposal
09:51 < lojbab> No answer on continuing beyond the hour.  We will likely be
talking about byfy,w hich almost certainly will not be completely finished
today evenw ith an additional hour.
09:52 < durka42> jinx, whoops
09:52 < mukti> lojbab: I have this meeting down for 11-2 EST, so would be
glad to continue at least for the next hour
09:52 < selpahi> I'm here for at least 6 more hours :)
09:52 < lojbab> I will hear suggestions for when to have the next session
as well.  Probably not more than 1/week and maybe better 1/ 2 weeks.
09:52 < Ilmen> At least Guskant ceased to take part
09:52 <@xalbo> I approve of continuing.
09:53 < Ilmen> as for me I'm free for about one hour more
09:53 < mukti> .i ta'o coi la xalbo
09:53 < mukti> long time
09:53 < lojbab> We can perhaps do the next session an hour or two earlier
for guskant's benefit, but I don't jnow how many present are on the US west
coast, which is the other extreme,
09:53 < noras> Well - if we start discussing byfy and don't finish, it'll
increase likelyhood of everyone "attending" the next session because things
will be up in the air.  So - ie e'u ranji
09:54 < mungojelly> Is there a *long-term* plan for when to transition this
process to Lojban?[C
09:54 < mukti> banseljaj, are you on west coast time?
09:54 < mungojelly> Guskant is pretty good at English, but the rest of the
ponjbopre aren't. I've been speaking to them in Lojban and they're rather
annoyed on the whole that we still do everything in English.
09:55 < lojbab> this process?  Do you mean the meeting discussions?  Or
having the merely having the channel go to Lojban?
09:55 < Ilmen> ua nai ru'e .i xu ki'icne lo ka bangu pilno kei lo jbobau
09:55 < mungojelly> For instance they'd like new words to be defined in
Lojban as well as English when they're put into the dictionary, please.
09:56 < Ilmen> mungojelly: Yeah, I expect so
09:56 < mungojelly> lojbab: Just in general, it seems increasingly odd to
me over the years that these discussions continue to be in English. Now
that there are non-English speaking Lojbanists it's becoming really
painfully inappropriate. Just saying. :(
09:56 < gleki> mungojelly: but who can add new definitions if not they
themselves?
09:56 < durka42> I always do that with my words (granted I don't create
that many words)
09:56 < Ilmen> mi xenru lo nu na tolcafne fa lo nu mi jmina lo glibau po'o
velski JVS
09:57 < Ilmen> .i sa'e na'e tolcafne
09:57 < mungojelly> gleki: If the only definition is in English then
someone who doesn't speak English can't translate that definition?!
09:57 < lojbab> Back when we last considered going to Lojban in meetings,
there was a committee that was going to devise the words and forms needed
for parliamentary procedure.  Nothing was ever completed to my knpowledge.
09:57 < durka42> no'i, so what do we think about mukti's BPFK recharter
proposal? I like it, I think it's high time the BPFK considered the reality
that there are several dialects of Lojban
09:58 < mungojelly> Lojban should become the lingua franca of our
community. Not today, entirely, but in general, long-term. Obviously.
09:58 < lojbab> I have not had time to consider the specifics of the
proposal in depth - I saw it only a few minutes before logging on.
09:58 < mukti> my apologies for not distributing it earlier
09:59 < selpahi> Some specifics will have to be discussed, but I overall
approve.
09:59 < durka42> personally, my Lojban is not good enough (though I hope it
will one day be so) to participate in an LLG meeting real-time like this. I
could do it on the mriste.
09:59 < Ilmen> mi'u -- me too
09:59 < Ilmen> (that's weird how {mi'u} and "me too" sounds similar)
09:59 < lojbab> I would like considered as an alternative disbanding byfy
*for now*.
10:00 < durka42> I also note that Lojbab said at the beginning of the
meeting that posts could be made in other languages (but nobody has done so=
)
10:00 < mukti> mungojelly: Perhaps it would be possible to gradually adopt
lojban proceedings. Maybe a good place to start would be BPFK. Presumably
the most active members of BPFK will have a level of lojban such that they
are capable of holding some sessions entirely in lojban.
10:00 < durka42> disbanding? why?
10:00 < Ilmen> sa'e mi tugni la selpa'i
10:00 < mukti> I wouldn't want LLG to prescribe that to BPFK, but I can
imagine BPFK might want to take up such an initiative on its own.
10:01 < Ilmen> ie
10:01 < mungojelly> mukti: It would be nice if the people talking about the
future of Lojban spoke it, but that's not my general impression. I'm on
speaking terms of course with the dozen or so people who are actually
fairly fluent in Lojban and none of them have much of anything to do with
this process.
10:01 < xorxes> I approve of mukti's proposal too
10:01 < mukti> As I recall selpa'i and Ilmen, who have been some of the
most active BPFK workers over the last year, have discussed working in
lojban
10:02 < gleki> I approve of mukti's proposal too
10:02 < noras> I would like the mission statement.  Is it just description?
10:02 < lojbab> durka: to best answer, we need to agree what the next
task(s) for byfy.  I think that the next step is one in which the formal
committee concept is probably not all that useful because of the whole
issue of membership.
10:03 < lojbab> I am not sure that we need a jatna either, in the sense
that Robin has been (i.e a dictator-in-chief).
10:03 < Ilmen> By the way, the cmavo description task of BPFK is pretty
close to completion
10:03 <@xalbo> The idea, as I understand it, is for the BPFK to be a
working group, with some fluidity as to how membership is decided and how
proposals are approved. But the rigor is that any proposals BPFK does make
need approval by LLG.
10:03 < lojbab> Ilmen: what does "pretty close" mean?  How long to
completion?
10:04 < noras> In particular, I am concerned about any change proposals
(are they part of BYFY still?) that invalidate already-written text or
understanding; this discourages creation and learning of the current state.
10:04 <@xalbo> In essence, the LLG apppoints BPFKJ, BPFKJ decides how to
appoint BPFK, BPFK proposes to LLG, LLG approves or disapproves, and then
chooses a new BPFKJ.
10:05 < mukti> To my mind, the most important role the chair of BPFK plays
is to act as the official point of contact between LLG and BPFK. Without
such a point of contact, the relationship between LLG and BPFK is unclear.
10:05 < Ilmen> lojbab: I can't say for sure how long it can take, but last
time I assessed the cmavo section state, all the cmavo had a definition,
and only a handful of them had some blanks like "XXXX" in them (about 4~5
cmavo)
10:05 < durka42> noras: precisely why the BPFK should be able to consider
multiple standards. then we can describe lojban as she is spoken without
invalidating anything
10:05 < selpahi> In You're Doing It Wrong, Robin proposes that the LLG
"exists only to deal with monetary matters, and the BPFK is for language
definition issues."
10:05 < lojbab> What does "multiple standards"ean?
10:05 < lojbab> mean?
10:05 < gleki> noras: I dont think it will change much. The question is
about relatively seldom used constructs. But note that a lot of previous
texts contain mistakes and thus those texts can't be recommended as
learning resources.
10:06 < mungojelly> noras: The spoken language does change, regardless of
what's proposed. Many experiments are ongoing, many past experiments have
been broadly accepted into the language as it's spoken.
10:06 < mukti> selpahi: The 2008 Annual Meeting also passed similar
language which is supposed to accompany the announcement of each annual
meeting.
10:06 < mukti> "the LLG is a business organization, and is only
tangentially in the business of running the Lojban language"
10:06 < mukti> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+Meeting+Summary+2008
10:06 <@xalbo> noras: The possiblity that there will be future changes
discourages current production, but the problem is that right now, current
production is hampered by a lingering sense of uncertainty.
10:07 < selpahi> mukti: Right, but voting and being able to say no to what
the BPFK comes up with is a power.
10:08 < gleki> noras: and in fact xorlo reform already invalidated older
texts. It wasn't me who approved of that reform but exactly as you are
saying it already discouraged producing new texts. We can't do anything now
but to stabilize Lojban at a new level now with xorlo approved. The
previous attempt of freezing the language seems to have failed.
10:08 < durka42> it's a language, it can't be frozen
10:09 < selpahi> Freeze it, kill it
10:09 < lojbab> The original idea as evolved in the first year or two of
byfy, was I think that havinbg finished CLL1.1, we would be considering all
of the proposed changes as a single lump, them having been implicit
considered as part of the voting on individual sections,.
10:09 < Ilmen> .i sa'u lo nu fanta lo nu cenba cu nu catra
10:09 < selpahi> .u'i
10:09 < durka42> but if we can say "that is correct according to Lojban '97
(or whatever it is called)", and "that is correct according to Lojban '14",
then we don't have to hold new texts/speakers hostage to old ones
10:09 < mukti> selpahi: I agree that it's a power, but I also think that it
is necessary for BPFK and LLG to have a formal relationship. I tried to
come up with a proposal that avoids the current problem, where BPFK is
completely under the thumb of LLG, while avoiding another potential problem
where BPFK's activity becomes completely independent of LLG's values.
10:10 < noras> mi tugni la mukti
10:10 < lojbab> The single lumop idea did not presume that experimental
usages (in experimental cmavo space) would be formally decided at this
point.
10:11 < mukti> The current proposal limits LLG's power to recognizing or
not recognizing the work of BPFK. If LLG withholds recognition from BPFK's
work, I find it likely that no one will volunteer to do the BPFK work.
Which is explicitly envisioned as a possibility.
10:12 < xorxes> since LLG and BPFK are roughly the same people, that's
unlikely anyway
10:12 < Ilmen> .u'i
10:12 < mukti> However, given my (admittedly limited) experience with the
community, I find it unlikely that LLG would do anything but applaud any
progress BPFK makes.
10:12 < mukti> (Also, what xorxes said.)
10:12 < Ilmen> ie
10:13 < noras> My concern is only that I have seem some proposals for
changes that would, pe'i, make Lojban not-Lojban (such as the last letter
of gismu shows which place of the bridi)
10:13 < gleki> u'e
10:13 < gleki> never seen this
10:14 < lojbab> xorxes: that is more or less why I am not so sure we need a
formal BPFK at this time.   Once the precriptive era completely ends, then
the concept of BPFK as a standards group which really does need to be
indepenednt of LLG seems more important.
10:15 < xorxes> the prescriptive era is likely to still last a few decades,
I would think
10:15 < xorxes> judging from past experience
10:15 < lojbab> mukti: indeed!  BPFK results aren't really rejectable at
this point.
10:15 < mungojelly> It's socially determined what's actually permitted to
change. For instance the formal experimental cmavo space is x*, but people
are actually experimenting now in the CV'VV. There's social pressure on
Curtis Franks to stop making so many of them, but it's because of how many
and the style of them, not because they're CV'VV instead of the authorized
x-space.
10:16 < gleki> My only complaint is that curtis doesnt provide usage
examples but that's mostly due to jbovlaste limitations
10:16 < lojbab> I would like to see the formal prescriptive era to end with
CLL2.0 and the and dictionary publication.
10:16 < mungojelly> It could be nice in theory if we had some formal
process for deciding where people should experiment but at the moment it's
determined by a set of taboos, by people complaining about things that feel
disruptive to them.
10:16 < xorxes> even if it did, that's likely several years
10:17 < durka42> I thought CV'VV was also officially designated
experimental space, but I think you're right in general yeah
10:17 < durka42> xorxes: ie
10:17 < noras> Yes - CV'VV is experimental - see page 51 of current CLL
10:18 < lojbab> xorxes: I think much of the dissatisfaction is that we have
let it continue so long.  If we can figure out how to speed it up, then
many problems disappear.
10:18 < durka42> but "give up and disband" does not speed it up, in my view
10:18 < xorxes> right
10:18 < lojbab> Disband !=3D give up.
10:19 < durka42> ma te frica
10:19 < mukti> I'd be happy for disbanding BPFK to be considered alongside
a policy like the one I set forth. It would be good to know what the will
of the community is. In any case, I'm confident that the status quo -- BPFK
as defined by the 2002-2003 policy -- is making no one happy.
10:20 < mukti> Personally, I very much would like to see a working BPFK.
10:20 < lojbab> It means that we don't (necessarily) have a jatna appointed
by LLG  The workers on BPFK can of course choose whatever leader(s) they
wish.
10:21 < mungojelly> The process I support is a federation of autonomous
collectives. Such a process doesn't require central coordination of course,
so I'm not asking for any support or acknowledgement, just saying, that's
the way I'm heading.
10:21 < lojbab> And as at present, the membersof BPFK at any time are
pretty much those who do something.
10:21 <@xalbo> lojbab: I don't understand what you're proposing. Disband
BPFK, change its structure, something else?
10:21 < durka42> I think I misunderstood "disband"
10:21 < gleki> I hope J.Cowan wont assume that his opinion is no longer
listened to during BPFK-related discussions
10:22 < mukti> I'd like to point out that my proposal explicitly does not
recommend that the BPFK jatna be appointed, which is a major difference
with the current policy.
10:22 <@xalbo> Yeah, I took "disband" to mean "no more BPFK"
10:22 < mukti> (Though it does require LLG to reaffirm the relationship
with BPFK through a ratifying vote.)
10:23 < mukti> gleki: You mean la balgenpre ?
10:23 < selpahi> There is a lot of work left to be done for BPFK or
whoever. The language is severly underdocumented when it comes to its
semantics.
10:23 < lojbab> By disband, I mean that the formal organization would no
longer exist as a (quasi-independent) committee of LLG.  There would still
be the presumably informal group of "whoever is working on the standard at
the moment"
10:24 < lojbab> It is part of the standard for Lojban that semantics are
not prescribed.
10:24 <@xalbo> ue
10:24 < selpahi> I know that is your position.
10:24 < mungojelly> Incidentally yeah if someone actually were to work on a
descriptive accounting of Lojban as it's actually spoken today, that would
be crazy useful to me and to everyone. It's a lot harder to actually figure
out what's going on that to just assert untrue things, though. :/
10:24 < selpahi> But it's not even *described* either
10:24 < Ilmen> Shouldn't Lojban be able to be unambiguously translated to
formal predicate logic formulae?
10:24 < selpahi> Yes.
10:25 < selpahi> Absolutely.
10:25 < b_jonas> Ilmen: no
10:25 < noras> If byfy is only descriptive, I'm probably OK.  Again, my
concern is that those most wanting to *revise* the language would
predominate and thus try to "evolve" the language by fiat.
10:26 < selpahi> That doesn't work anyway.
10:26 < mungojelly> Yeah, we informally worked out on IRC a set of
transformations from the spoken crunched up form to a sort of perfect ideal
extended form we have a shared sketch of in our heads. Everything expands
out into simple bridi explaining the relationships in the sentence, I guess
that's the deep form of it. Beautiful language.
10:26 < Ilmen> ma na gunka sei malgli
10:26 < lojbab> There are a lot of things (the descriptive accounting, the
formal predicate logic translation, the semantics) that MIGHT be produced
by a byfy.  But the next step is to finish the cmavo definitions, and
approve any needed changes, and put out CLL2.0 ...
10:26 < selpahi> Fiats don't work.
10:26 < gleki> mukti: i mean if BPFK's work isnt official then xalbo,
aionys, Cowan might assume that their votes no longer mean anything and
thus they are driven out of Lojbanistan
10:26 < Ilmen> je'e
10:26 < lojbab> and a ddictiomnary that would (finally!) include the cmavo.
10:27 < mukti> I expect there to be many disagreements going forward, as
there have been in the past. However, I'm not aware of anybody who is
trying to reduce lojban to their personal or proposed understanding of it.
There's a lot of tolerance for language varieties at all levels.
10:28 < mungojelly> I got sick enough of jbovlaste BTW that I made my own
dictionary for less formal descriptions of things:
https://github.com/mungojelly/mlevlaste Anyone feel free to push me
changes. la mlevlaste:la jbovlaste::Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy:Encyclopedia Galactica
10:29 < lojbab> I see the next major job to be extracting from the cmavo
definitions a complete set of change proposals (which I would actually like
to see written as a set of change pages to CLL 1.1, thereby making CLL2.0
relatively easy to produce).
10:29 < selpahi> It's going to be very hard to produce the content, since
so much has changed, and most of the examples are out of date.
10:30 < selpahi> xorlo needs a new chapter.
10:30 < gleki> I suggest that we assign someone to monitor all commits to
github CLL and then when time comes present the changelog to LLG members.
10:30 < selpahi> For which I suggest using guskant's write-up as a
potential basis
10:30 < selpahi> (or parts of it)
10:30 < lojbab> That job is probably done best informally more or less the
way things have been done for the last few years..
10:30 < mungojelly> So we're talking about catching up about the standard
old cmavo, right? We're not really talking about catching up to
lo'ai/sa'ai/le'ai even which is years and years ago now?!
10:31 < selpahi> mungojelly: I think some aren't aware that Lojban '97
isn't spoken much anymore.
10:31 < lojbab> and  that existing job has been neither helped nor hindered
by the existence of a jatna,.
10:31 < gleki> I'm afraid lo'ai/sa'ai isnt for CLL 1.1. It will take a lot
of time to integrate many other fixes. It's for CLL 2.0
10:31 < mungojelly> That'd be nice somehow to see lo'ai/sa'ai/le'ai
acknowledged somewhere as formally existing, I'd feel nice about that
somehow, as if spoken Lojban had finally gotten some recognition or
something.
10:31 < mukti> My concern with the status quo of BPFK and the Baseline
Policy might be fairly boiled down to the idea that if LLG continues on the
path of declaring what *other* people should do, then we can expect for the
work to continue to fail to get done.
10:32 < durka42> indeed
10:32 < lojbab> If people want to include some of the experimental cmavo in
2.0. that seems fine by me. IF they get proposed with change pages to CLL
so we know what has changed.
10:32 < mungojelly> selpahi: Lojban '97 was very rarely spoken, it was a
literary language. And today's Lojban is rarely spoken out loud, it's still
a typed language. But we're at the edge of that next transition.
10:33 < mukti> If LLG's policy is that CLL 2.0 must be composed of
change-proposals relative to lojban-97, then we had better know where we
can find some people interested in doing that kind of work.
10:33 < Ilmen> za'a la kanxe cu di'a .irci
10:33 < mukti> I'm not aware of any such people.
10:33 < mungojelly> Yeah I think of the old standard as a historical
curiosity.
10:33 < mungojelly> I'm roughly as interested in documenting our
differences with mijyjbo.
10:34 < lojbab> As for me, I use only what is in CLL/  If someone uses one
or more experimental cmavo, I have utterly no idea what they have said, and
no idea where to look it up.  This is one reason why I haven't made
actually using the language a priority.
10:34 < mungojelly> But I mean I guess I could help if it was in some
context that felt like it was being respectful to the new language and its
speakers. I wouldn't want to be involved in something that's prescribing
after all this time that it's OK for people to start saying
lo'ai/sa'ai/le'ai, that seems rude somehow.
10:34 < selpahi> I'm not even talking about new cmavo. The existing cmavo
are used differently too.
10:34 < lojbab> If the language has changed so much from the CLL version in
actual usage, I likely will never bother to learn it.
10:34 < mungojelly> lojbab: That's absurd. You need to learn the language
we speak or get out.
10:34 < selpahi> For example ZAhO
10:35 < gleki> May I say in short what I suppose should be done? Let me
imagine one scenario. 1. robin says: now you may push requests to gihub CLL
into one of the branches. Then members of LLG start pushing requests and
one of us (e.g. Mukti or me or whoever is assigned) accept them checking
whether they dont break the flow of the explanations in the book. 3. Then
this person reports to LLG what has been done. 4. Following LLG's
resolution necessary changes (like e.g. rolling some commits back) are
made. 5. Another report is done 6. CLL 2.0 is printed. mu'o
10:35 < mungojelly> lojbab: What are you going to find people who want to
learn that Lojban too? What do you even mean? Learn Lojban!
10:35 < mungojelly> .e'o sai ko sarji la .lojban.
10:35 < mungojelly> .e'o sai ko ba'e cilre fi la .lojban.
10:36 < Ilmen> gleki: your post is cut
10:36 < mungojelly> It's a living spoken language. It doesn't need advice
about its own grammar, it doesn't need to be told how its grammar works by
people who can't speak it. It needs introductory materials. And speakers.
10:36 < gleki> Ilmen: doesnt it end in mu'o?
10:37 < Ilmen> gleki: "Following LLG's resolution neces---"
10:37 < lojbab> mungojelly: what is the reference of "la lojban"?  If it is
not CLL, I have no way to know what it is.
10:37 < selpahi> I mean, if you read xorxes' Alice in Wonderland, that's
roughly how we speak Lojban nowadays (me anyway). If the language in that
book looks weird to you, you might get lost speaking with modern Lojbanists=
.
10:37 < banseljaj> mukti: I'm on Pakistan Standard Time. Sorry I dropped
off.
10:37 < selpahi> There are some changes in addition to it, like {ka} being
very common now
10:37 < mukti> banseljaj: ua sai
10:37 < mungojelly> lojbab: "I only use what is in CLL" is like being a
modern English speaker and saying "I only use what's in shakespeare." It's
completely absurd.
10:37 < selpahi> We simply understand the language better
10:37 < gleki> May I say in short what I suppose should be done? Let me
imagine one scenario.
10:37 < gleki> 1. Robin says: now you may push requests to github CLL into
one of the branches. Then members of LLG start pushing requests and one of
us (e.g. Mukti or me or whoever is assigned) accept them checking whether
they dont break the flow of the explanations in the book. 3. Then this
person reports to LLG what has been done.
10:38 < gleki> 4. Following LLG's resolution necessary changes (like e.g.
rolling some commits back) are made. 5. Another report is done 6. CLL 2.0
is printed. mu'o
10:38 < selpahi> so the language use has changed
10:38 < Ilmen> ki'e gy
10:38 < lojbab> It may be absurd, but it is reality.  If I joined an IRC
channel or talked with you on the phone, that would be what I would use.
And I have no idea how to even learn that which is not documented.
10:38 < gleki> ^ that's what bother me most
10:38 < lojbab> I am extremely poor in learning languages, you may
understand.
10:39 < selpahi> We all have learned an undocumented form of Lojban though,
but yes, it's still a problem.
10:39 < mungojelly> Most of what had to change in order to make Lojban a
speakable language was the gismu meanings had to be jiggled. Our collective
understanding of the meanings has been jiggled just enough until we could
get our thoughts through.
10:39 < mungojelly> Oh also there's a lot that was jiggled around in the
logical implications of things.
10:39 < mungojelly> There's a coherent semantics to spoken Lojban today.
10:39 < gleki> That xorlo wasn't integrated into CLL or any other printed
documents. This cause huge problems with the language. We need to finally
document the current state of affairs and out it on paper.
10:40 < mungojelly> And there wasn't to the old theoretical language before
it was spoken, or at least if you tried to say anything people would
explain to you how your statement had really weird implications.
10:40 < lojbab> gleki: iesai
10:40 < mungojelly> Today's Lojban has a sensible set of implications
around everything, it's very practical.
10:40 < mukti> At the risk of sounding like I'm proposing to cut a baby in
two: I don't see a necessary conflict in between lojbab's position that his
understanding of lojban is defined by CLL , and the position of those like
myself who speak a newer variety of the language.
10:40 < gleki> neither me.
10:41 < selpahi> Not if they are recognized as different versions
10:41 < mungojelly> mukti: But he's not saying he has that understanding.
If there were someone SPEAKING a CLL Lojban, that'd be cool. I'd go chat
with them and try to follow those rules. That community has never existed.
10:41 < mukti> Those positions can't co-exist under the 2002-3 Baseline
Policy. But I see that as a defect in the policy, not in the way that we
all use lojban.
10:41 < mungojelly> There's only one spoken Lojban. We should probably
document that one and not a fantasy.
10:41 < selpahi> Agreed
10:41 < selpahi> @mukti
10:41 < lojbab> Then someone needs to document the new version.
10:41 < noras> So, I see byfy as the way toward documenting the "newer
variety" or newer varieties.
10:41 < durka42> yeah
10:42 < mungojelly> That'd be great. I'd really like if someone would try
to produce comprehensive documentation of Lojban as it's spoken. Very
useful.
10:42 < gleki> AndI'm not opposed to xorlo. I'm opposed on how politically
and technically it was done. "No, you dont speak correct Lojban - How do
you know? - I'm one of the authors of xorlo? - I have no idea what is
xorlo. I just bought CLL, nothing is said there about it."
10:42 < gleki> *AndI'm not opposed to xorlo. I'm opposed on how politically
and technically it was done. "No, you dont speak correct Lojban - How do
you know? - I'm one of the authors of xorlo. - I have no idea what is
xorlo. I just bought CLL, nothing is said there about it."
10:42 < mungojelly> Yes, it was messy.
10:42 < mukti> I think it can be such a vehicle. But one of the problems
with the current definition of BPFK, is that it's primary task is to flesh
out the documentation of CLL.
10:42 < mungojelly> But it was necessary in order to get the language in
working order.
10:43 < mungojelly> There's other changes than xorlo that have been made I
think that are equally significant but they're less easy to explain or
fight over, they're in the deep implications of things.
10:43 < noras> If byfy as-is won't serve the purpose of documenting newer
version(s), then let's set up byfy-2 to do so.
10:43 < mungojelly> What's the sense in talking in English about
documenting Lojban, though?
10:44 < gleki> I'm sure when Robin says "Go!" the version on github will
get a lot of contributors.
10:44 < lojbab> So what is needed to flesh out the new 1.1 CLL in order to
describe/prescribe the current language at the same level.  Adding in
semantics would be a whole new chunk, even assuming that someone has an
idea how to document semantics in language people can understand.
10:44 < mungojelly> We can get more people involved by speaking English--
but not, necessarily, more people who know enough about modern Lojban to
document it.
10:45 < mungojelly> English conversation about Lojban these days is
pointless bikeshedding, Lojban conversation about Lojban is all very
practical and productive and focused on making the language work.
10:45 < lojbab> Our problem isn
10:45 < mukti> noras: I would love to see people continue the work of BPFK
as originally envisioned, although my main concern is to remove obstacles
from the work that most people expect BPFK to be doing.
10:46 < mukti> If that requires two such bodies, so be it!
10:46 < lojbab> Our problem isn't so much number of people, but number of
people who actually get some unit of work to completion.  most stuff gets
partially done and then dropped.
10:47 < gleki> For now I'm only independently formalizing the interaction
of te sumti within each gismu and collecting usage examples for all words
inclduing cmavo. I should say MOST te sumti have never been used. 90% of
the language is a hole that only has obscure definiions in gimste. As for
other parts of semantics (if what I just said is relevant to semantics)
what are they? Defining certain gismu in terms of other gismu in pure
Lojban?
10:47 < mukti> mungojelly: mi pacna lo nu byfy cu ta'e casnu bau lo jbobau
10:47 <@xalbo> I put some work into BPFK. At the time, I thought the
purpose was to document the cmavo (including any changes). It seems now
like what's being said is that I should have been proposing changes
straight to CLL, instead of on a separate page.
10:48 < durka42> documenting cmavo is also important
10:48 < durka42> as of now the BPFK sections are a much better cmavo
reference than the ma'oste
10:48 <@xalbo> So now I feel like I'm being told that the existing BPFK
pages are a waste of everyone's work, sorry, redo it as diffs against a
different document or it doesn't count.
10:48 < gleki> xalbo: to what page have you been proposing it?
10:48 < selpahi> gleki: to'u lo si'o sko'opu
10:48 < mungojelly> mukti: la'a nai jbobausnu ku'i .i drata jitro bo lanxe
.i mu'a mi binxo lo mutce vlipa lo nu jbobau ra'u casnu .i cinmo na'e djica
.ai fa du'e ca vlipa
10:48 <@xalbo> The BPFK pages on the wiki (I think Attitudinal modifiers,
or something, but that's not the point.)
10:49 < durka42> I don't see anyone (except lojbab, maybe, I'm still not
sure) saying those pages need to go away
10:49 < gleki> I think the term "semantics" is too broad. For me
"semantics" was always something like mlismu or WordNet
10:49 < mungojelly> yeah those are really well done, xalbo, i remember
reading through those pages and thinking, shit, wow, someone finally
documented all this stuff
10:49 < durka42> I hope those will be finished soon and put into a real
dictionary
10:49 <@xalbo> .u'u de'a jundi
10:49 < durka42> co'oxy
10:49 < lojbab> xalbo:  finishing CLL 1.1 (which is essentially correcting
all the typos and known errors in the 1997 edition) was the first job.  Now
we can turn to documenting how 1997 Lojban has changed until the present
(in cmavo space first, gismu changes should come later)
10:50 < gleki> xalbo: how can you push anything to CLL? We dont have a
ready-to-commit CLL yet.
10:50 < mukti> I see the writing of CLL (or new textbooks for that matter)
as orthogonal to the work of BPFK. I would expect the authors of such text
to use the output of BPFK in their work, but would not expect BPFK to
produce popular documents.
10:50 < mungojelly> lojbab: .. when exactly were you planning to document
how the gismu have changed? Because @gismu just tweeted an "official"
definition of zabna, confusing the fuck out of everyone, sigh.
10:51 < gleki> mungojelly: from where do they take definitions? Robin (the
jatna at that time) changed their definitions by fiat. Everyone including
lojbab approved.
10:51 < mungojelly> At least people have stopped telling each other that
they're "using mabla wrong." At least we've collectively come to an
understanding that we can't wait for official recognition and that it is
absolutely clearly definitely the definition itself that's wrong.
10:52 < lojbab> The result of whatever BPFK does has to be in some sort of
document.  That doument will (eventually) supersede CLL as THE standard for
the language.  If BPFK produces no product, what is the standard?
10:52 < selpahi> gleki: .i ku'i ma'a na zifre lo ka ningau lo jbovlaste
smuvelski pe la'o me. officialdata .me (to nu bebna ie toi)
10:52 < mungojelly> lojbab: The standard for the language is the
expressions produced by its most competent speakers, for instance its
highest pieces of art, as in other living languages.
10:52 < gleki> selpahi: ja'ozo'o  la'o gy.officialdata.gy. zmadu la
camgusmis lo ka vlipa i uinai la'o gy.officialdata.gy. na remna
10:52 < mukti> I also see the documentation of language change (diachronic,
in linguistic terms) as a separate task from the description of any stage
of the language as it is spoken ("synchronic")
10:53 < lojbab> (Anotjher purpose of long-term BPFK was to be the
certification of Lojban materials as being compliant with the standard, but
you need a standard first.
10:53 < mukti> Both are interesting tasks, but I think we erect an
unnecessary obstacle in yoking them together
10:53 < selpahi> mukti: Yes, good point. A version can be documented
without also having to explain how it differs from any given other version
10:54 < mungojelly> I think it'd be an interesting experiment to see
whether a language could be produced by prescriptive fiat, but this is no
longer a place where that experiment can be properly conducted.
10:54 < lojbab> I have no idea what @gismu is.  I use the 1994 gismu list,
and only that list, when I write.
10:54 < durka42> the requirement to phrase everything as diffs against a
version of Lojban that few speak, and nobody is willing to finish
documenting, is the catch-22 that we need to remove (or one of them,
anyway) for BPFK to be effective
10:54 < selpahi> Yes, I think so.
10:54 < lojbab> And I don't have a cell phone, so I have no idea what is
being tweeted (or any other form of social networking).
10:54 < mungojelly> lojbab: Do you? Do you write in Lojban? It's not that
hard, you'd pick it up in a few months if you seriously tried.
10:55 < mukti> To my mind, for example, one of the significant barriers to
understanding the contemporary gadri system -- the one that has been in use
for the last decade -- is that almost all of the materials describe it
diachronically
10:55 < mungojelly> lojbab: I'd be happy to speak to you on the old
fashioned phone system. Or, heck, I'll write you paper letters.
10:55 < mungojelly> You can't tell me you're not up to date on paper. :p
10:55 < durka42> @gismu tweets random lines from the 1994 gismu.txt, as far
as I can tell
10:55 < selpahi> The definition on jbovlaste for "zabna" and "mabla" are
still the old ones, which nobody uses. Robin tried to get the new
definitions approved by "fiat", but we still can't update officialdata on
jbovlaste.  But who can? Why don't we update zabna and mabla?
10:56 < Ilmen> durka42: well, but reusing CLL's content is easier than
rewritting whole chapters from scratch :p
10:56 < durka42> well, we _can_, we have the keys
10:56 < selpahi> Yes, but we socially can't.
10:56 < durka42> we just don't use them out of some sense of
propriety/officialism
10:56 < mungojelly> Do it right now, then. Put up the real definition. Stop
confusing the nintadni.
10:57 < durka42> I would be in support of that
10:57 < Ilmen> The change in zabna/mabla's meaning has been officially and
exceptionally approved, as far as I remember.
10:57 < mungojelly> x1 is fucked is the definition. you don't even need any
x2 or x3 at all, fuck em. x1 is shitty, x1 sucks, x1 is so so bad, fuck
that x1, fuck it. that's all.
10:57 < durka42> several times
10:57 < mukti> One barrier I think is that the policy is dense and
contradictory. Anyone who understands, for example, ZG raise their hands.
10:58 < noras> mungojelly: If that is the definition, and I never use
"fuck", then I repeal the work "malglico"
10:58 < mungojelly> If this meeting results in a proper definition of
"mabla" being posted then I'll have to eat my words that nothing will come
of this meeting. Just that alone would be fantastic.
10:58 < mukti> Even before ZG, the Baseline Policy of 2002-3 is a huge
document, with large segments devoted to a hopeful period once the BPFK had
completed its work.
10:58 < lojbab> @xalbo: I agree that the existing cmavo pages are indeed
very useful to many people, once they are approved.  Thecurrent text
 presumably can be turned into dictionary definitions rather easily.  But
they also need to be turned into descriptive text like CLL..
10:58 < durka42> I move to update the jbovlaste entries for {mabla} and
{zabna}. Can I get a second?
10:58 < mungojelly> noras: Well in English you have to talk unrelatedly
about sex or excrement or whatever. In Lojban mal- just adds a swearishness
without any particular context other than what you're adding it to.
10:59 < selpahi> The definition most use is: x1 is
execrable/deplorable/wretched/shitty/awful/rotten/miserable/contemptible/cr=
appy/inferior/low-quality
in property x2 by standard x3; x1 stinks/sucks in aspect x2 according to x3=
.
10:59 < Ilmen> durka42: if one wants to keep officialdata's def, why not
adding the new official def with 10001 upvotes? :)
10:59 < lojbab> mostly because until they have made it imnto CLL form as
well, CLL is incompatible with the cmavo pages.
10:59 < noras> Mungojelly: Yes, but I don't swear
10:59 < durka42> Ilmen: 20000
10:59 < Ilmen> ie
10:59 < mukti> I'd like to recognize that there is something definitively
heroic about the fact that, despite the tangled process and the frustration
of not being able to make needed changes for years, people still care.
11:00 < mungojelly> selpahi: ok yeah property for x2, that's useful, i
don't see it used much but that's what you'd say "mabla lo ka skari"
screwed up in what colors it is
11:00 < mukti> This is a good thing. This is hopeful.
11:00 < durka42> okay, motion amended to give 20000 updates to the
new-and-approved definitions of mabla+zabna
11:00 < mukti> (But let's not take it for granted.)
11:00 < durka42> whoops
11:00 < durka42> okay, motion amended to give 20000 upvotes to the
new-and-approved definitions of mabla+zabna
11:00 < durka42> mukti: ie
11:00 < durka42> mukti: clearly, there is a lot of pent-up frustration as
well
11:01 < durka42> I'll make my motion on the mriste if noone seconds it here
11:01 < selpahi> We can't vote here.
11:01 < mungojelly> noras: I bet you have words in your idiolect that count
as swears to you. I think it's an instinct. I've heard people use a whole
different part of their brain for swear than for other words, which matches
my feeling.
11:01 < Ilmen> I approve @durka42 for the upvotes
11:02 < selpahi> Then you should also update {lo} ...
11:02 < durka42> we can make motions though
11:02 < lojbab> mungojelly: I don't know who is a competent speaker.  The
committee to define such a thing consists of Pierre and has produced little
product,
11:02 < durka42> selpahi: I'd like to bulk-update the cmavo definitions
from the BPFK pages, as well
11:02 < durka42> but the attitudinals aren't finished
11:02 < mungojelly> Do I have a definition in mlevlaste yet for {lo}? I
don't think so. I should put something silly.
11:02 < durka42> selpahi: maybe we can pull in the BPFK defs by selma'o,
then we can do it piecemeal
11:03 < selpahi> Good idea
11:03 < selpahi> Unfortunately each selma'o has a different style of
definition, different level of detail (because different authors)
11:03 < selpahi> I don't know if they should be made to match
11:03 < durka42> right
11:03 < durka42> this can be done, though
11:04 < Ilmen> Aso, maybe it's worth keeping the old-fashioned definition
entries. What about concurrent entries?
11:04 < gleki> durka42: only use llg-members mriste.
11:04 < selpahi> Just make a new user called BPFK.
11:04 < Ilmen> (With more upvotes li'a)
11:04 < durka42> gleki: yes that's what I meant
11:04 < mukti> As I understand it, jbovlaste's "official" status is
actually pretty murky. Though it seems like a central institution these
days, it looked much different on the mriste from 2003-5 or so. It was
recognized as "an official project", and some care has been taken to, for
example, give extra weight to the old inputs. But I don't know if there is
any governing process covering what is proposed.
11:04 < mukti> (i.e. bulk upvoting mabla/zabna)
11:05 < gleki> durka42: mukti since Robin approved new zabna/mabla
definitions I suggesttht you indeed ad 20 000 upvotes. It's rather a
technical problem.
11:05 < Ilmen> ie
11:05 < mukti> Which is not to say that the motion is unwelcome. Just that
I'm not aware of a governing rule covering this case.
11:05 < durka42> je'e
11:05 < gleki> if you are not then who is aware?
11:05 < mungojelly> This is hardly a new motion anyway. This is finally
bothering to inform people of the decision we made many years ago.
11:05 < gleki> Robin isn't, I am not, then who?
11:06 < mukti> I'm saying this hoping that those with longer institutional
memories present may be able to correct me. ;)
11:06 < durka42> it's 2PM (veti'u mi). we have some BPFK cliffhangers.
should we talk about a time for next session, or do that by email?
11:06 < Ilmen> Yeah, I'm going to go to eat pretty soon
11:06 < durka42> mi ca ca'o citka
11:07 < gleki> indeed, I'm leaving.
11:07 < gleki> i co'o
11:07 < Fauve> coi la Ilmen
11:07 < selpahi> co'o
11:07 < Ilmen> co'o di'ai gy
11:07 < mukti> co'o la gleki
11:07 < lojbab> mukti: your summary of the status of jvovlaste seems
correct..  I never use it,  I only know how to use real dictionaries.
11:07 < Ilmen> coi la cilce
11:07 < durka42> gleki: are you going to format and post the log?
11:07 < noras> It's harder to keep up with on e-mail because it's
interspersed with other things.  Here, it's more directed, so I'd prefer
another session, I guess.
11:07 < Fauve> Ilmen: are you speaking french?
11:07 < Ilmen> Je parle fran=C3=A7ais.
11:07 < mukti> lojbab: ta'o have you seen vlasisku? You might find it
easier to use: http://vlasisku.lojban.org/
11:08 < mukti> (or maybe not ... but I do!)
11:08 < mungojelly> lojbab: la jbovlaste is rather unfortunately quirky,
but i don't know anyone who speaks lojban who's not forced to use it to
learn what words mean.
11:08 < selpahi> I can't believe people still search through jbovlaste
instead of vlasisku, it's so painful
11:08 < lojbab> OK on ending the session,.  Proposals for the next session
can be made on the members list as a point of privilege
11:08 < mungojelly> lojbab: you assert often that you're bad at learning
languages. that's not just inherent to your identity, it consists of
something, it results from your actions. for instance refusing to use the
main lojban dictionary would result in it being difficult to learn lojban.
11:09 < durka42> thanks everyone who made time for the real-time session
11:09 < mungojelly> lojbab: lojban is a relatively easy language, with
relatively little history still. with your existing knowledge you should be
able to become fluent in just a few months of dedicated study if you
bothered.
11:09 < lojbab> mukti  I mean an offline text file.  I read text, I don't
use apps.  My mindset doesn't yet relate to apps, because I don't use a
smart phone.
11:09 < cirko> noras: if I can ask, how does your use of mabla/zabna look?
"zo fuck mabla lo nu gletu"? "lo ka gasnu lo kalsa cu mabla lo (su'u)?
idmigrante"? something else?
11:09 < durka42> (including those who already left)
11:09 < mukti> ie very exciting to discuss these issues with so many people
around the globe. I look forward to the continuation on the mriste and the
next irc session.
11:10 < mungojelly> lojbab: please answer my email? english is fine, i
speak english. please send me a mailing address and i'll write to you in
lojban on paper?
11:11 < mungojelly> i can understand not wanting to be staring at screens
all the time. i'm looking forward to reading my first lojban book on paper
sometime.
11:11 < noras> cirko: As stated in CLL, it's a derogatory version of the
word; not necessarily cursing.  Example being "shit" as a form of feces as
opposed to "fertilizer" as the zan...
11:11 < mukti> lojbab: Some years ago, Robin added a feature to jbovlaste
to produce a printable dictionary. In case that interest you:
http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/export/latex-export.html?lang=3Den
11:11 < selpahi> mungojelly: I have three physical Lojban books!
11:12 < mungojelly> noras: yes but "it" is the word produced by adding the
mal- rafsi, not the x1, the x1 isn't a "derogatory sense," it's the thing
being derided
11:12 < mungojelly> selpahi: oh cool, what are they??
11:12 < mukti> Aren't there physical copies of Michael Helmsen's first book=
?
11:12 < mungojelly> mukti: ziryroi? even i don't read mijyjbo :/
11:13 < selpahi> mungojelly: I made them all by myself with print on
demand, they are: The Little Prince, Alice in Wonderland and Lo nu binxo
(all by xorxes li'a)
11:13 < mukti> Yeah, {ziryroi}
11:13 < lojbab> mungojelly: you are correct that :bad at learning
languages" is not an identity thing.  It is a practical observation,
 Better example.  I learned Russian before adopting two kids from Russia.
I went to Russia and was less than passable at conversing with adults, ...
11:13 < mukti> s/Helmsen/Helsem/
11:14 < mungojelly> lojbab: i've never successfully learned a natlang other
than English, but i really don't think Lojban is comparably difficult.
11:14 < mukti> Yes, I see that it was advertised in JL15 with "an
artistically decorated cover"
11:14 < lojbab> though I was able to communicate adequate;y with the kids.
The kids took more than a year to learn English, so for most of a year,
Russian was a primary language at home.
11:14 < mungojelly> what selpahi has been complaining about the continuing
lack of vocabulary, it's true to some extent, i mean compared to like, hey,
russian, sure, quite a small vocab still
11:15 < mungojelly> which makes it easier if you're trying to catch up
11:15 < selpahi> mungojelly: Yes, because I want Lojban to stand on equal
footing. Of course Lojban has a huge vocab for a conlang
11:15 < lojbab> I never became more skilled in Russian in all that time,
and never could sustain fluent conversation with an adult.
11:15 < Ilmen> Thank you everyone for this interesting session of
discussion :)
11:15 < durka42> ge'i lo makcu cu rusko cusku frica lo verba gi la .lojbab.
cu jdika lo ni rusybau certu
11:16 < lojbab> My results with Lojban have been similar.  I still think in
English and translate to Lojban in my head.  This is slow and very
nonfluent.  If you send me a letter in Lojban, I will be translating it
word for word to Engliah. Because that is all I know how to do,.
11:17 < mungojelly> lojbab: i was thinking in english all the way up until,
i guess it was three days ago. i still slip into it sometimes.
11:17 < Ilmen> As for me, when I'm writting in Lojban, I do not make any
translation in my mind
11:17 < selpahi> Me neither
11:17 < Ilmen> I produce Lojban sentences directly
11:17 < mungojelly> lojbab: it does take years of serious practice to get
to like a completely natural fluency, but it doesn't take that much to get
to the point where you can hold a simple conversation
11:17 < lojbab> Yeah, I think we still have a dozen copies of ziryroi.
11:18 < durka42> la ziryroi cu mo .a'u
11:18 < lojbab> My problem hasn't been lack of vocabulary.  It is being
stuck in word for word translation mode.
11:19 < sezycei> I'm hoping to get to the point where I'm fluent enough
that I can think in Lojban without difficulty. I realize it'll be years,
but I feel like it'll be worth it.
11:19 < mensi> sezycei: cu'u la'o gy.gleki.gy.:
http://mw.lojban.org/lmw/Special:WikiForum if u need a forum |
2015-01-17T06:03:35.
11:19 < mungojelly> lojbab: if you let me write you a letter in lojban i'm
not going to write the most advanced things i use, i'm going to write like
"mi gleki lo nu tavla do fo la .lojban."
11:19 < mensi> 190Z
11:19 < xorxes> durka42: pemci cukta
11:19 < selpahi> Here are two photos of my books:
http://selpahi.weebly.com/uploads/8/6/0/8/860862/7672802_orig.jpg
http://selpahi.weebly.com/uploads/8/6/0/8/860862/6160178_orig.jpg
11:19 < durka42> ua
11:19 < selpahi> sezycei: I doesn't have to be years
11:19 < durka42> selpahi: ma prina minde kagni pi'o do
11:19 < Ilmen> melbi
11:19 < selpahi> su'o dotco
11:20 < durka42> je'e
11:20 < sezycei> mensi: doi gleki I've used all sorts of different forums
before, and that one is not in the least way very easy to navigate. I was
meaning very literally a PHPBB3 forum or something - something that a lot
of people are familiar with.
11:20 < mensi> sezycei: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.gleki.gy. di'a
cusku da
11:20 < mungojelly> selpahi: sezycei: yeah depends on how intensive your
study is. if you stopped speaking a word of english right now and just
started trying to muddle through in lojban and did nothing else you'd be
competent in a week and fluent in two months, seriously.
11:20 < selpahi> la'a la'oi viaprinto
11:21 < sezycei> mungojelly, but nobody (who has any form of a life) can
seriously do that.
11:21 < mungojelly> selpahi: it's been really interesting getting back to
lojban after a while away and seeing how seriously you've been studying it
11:21 < selpahi> mungojelly: If there was all the vocab of natural
languages, then yes.
11:21 < selpahi> Right now a lot of the time you could spend speaking is
spent making words instead
11:21 < mungojelly> sezycei: yeah, but it's sorta a reductio ad absurdum i
guess is what i mean. you can't learn lojban very quickly, but it's not
really lojban's fault, it's that you've got other shit to do. :D
11:21 < selpahi> that slows us down a lot
11:21 < Ilmen> sezycei: there's also http://lojban.freeforums.net/
11:21 < mungojelly> selpahi: nah, you can improvise and me'oi your way
through almost anything, come on
11:21 < sezycei> Ilmen, that's great!
11:22 < lojbab> We held simple conversations in weekly sessions back in the
early and mid-90s.  But I never got any more fluent (I almost never needed
a dictionary back then/ LogFlash worked very well.  Even now I can often
read Lojban without a dictionary, but it is very slow ...
11:22 < sezycei> Now someone needs to just make that a whole lot less ugly
and people actually need to make use of it. Haha
11:22 < lojbab> and mostly I get hung up on cmavo that others use, that I
never really mastered.
11:22 < mungojelly> lojbab: yeah lojban is certainly overwhelming with the
cmavo at first. i've been relieved to get to the point where i'm mostly
only learning newly invented cmavo.
11:23 < mungojelly> lojbab: there's no way out but through, though. you
can't carefully study it from the outside until finally you jump in as a
fluent speaker all at once. you learn by doing it.
11:23 < sezycei> Also, giving it a subdomain/directory on lojban.org would
be a really good idea, Ilmen.
11:23 < noras> In addition, I've lost a lot of my knowledge of rafsi, so
it's hard to pick up on short-form words without lookup (which breaks the
flow)
11:23 < Ilmen> lojbab: By the way, we've hold many real-time spoken chats
in Lojban in the past few weeks
11:24 < mungojelly> lojbab: noras: my husband (la ckiku) and i have been
starting to speak to each other recently
11:24 < mungojelly> lojbab: noras: and whenever i ask whether there have
been other couples who've spoken lojban, you two are who's mentioned
11:24 < lojbab> durka: ziryroi was the first printed Lojban book.  Poetry.
Not generally grammatical or probably even good Lojban by any standard.  I
never could read it because it wasn't standard.
11:24 < sezycei> My girlfriend and I are also beginning to. I'm just trying
to get her past the "weirdness" of it (like saying things like {mi prami
do} and whatnot to eachother).
11:25 < mungojelly> lojbab: noras: so i'm desperately curious, since you've
pioneered supposedly this thing i'm trying to do, how did it go? how's it
going? what should i know?
11:25 < sezycei> I'm wondering the same thing as mungojelly.
11:25 < mungojelly> i guess it's pretty different because i'm pretty fluent
and i'm teaching la ckiku who's a nintadni
11:25 < Ilmen> (nintadni =3D beginner)
11:26 < noras> Thanks, Ilmen, I actually did catch that lujvo meaning
11:26 < Ilmen> je'e
11:26 < mungojelly> sezycei: "mi prami do" feels a little stilted to me to
actually say to la ckiku, but i say to him ".iu cai", yesterday i called
him "dirba" for the first time, that's a good spouse-talking word :D
11:27 < sezycei> la ckiku - {la} makes ckiku a name, right?
11:27 < durka42> yes
11:27 < mukti> My biggest challenge in lojban at this point is still lujvo.
I'm slow to recognize some rafsi, misrecognize others, and am generally
unaware of non-jvajvo particularities. I have, however, made little effort
to address these problems.
11:27 < sezycei> So your husband's chosen name is {ckiku}
11:27 < mungojelly> sezycei: yeah, he was named before me actually, he's I
X Key so ckiku key
11:27 < sezycei> "The Key"
11:27 < sezycei> Ahhh
11:27 < mungojelly> mukti: you sound like you need to play the
rolrafcreselkei :D
11:27 < sezycei> That sounds awfully inappropriate.
11:28 < sezycei> "A curiosity hangs by the thigh of a man, under its
master's cloak. It is pierced through in the front; it is stiff and hard
and it has a good standing-place. When the man pulls up his own robe above
his knee, he means to poke with the head of his hanging thing that familiar
hole of matching length which he has often filled before."
11:28 < mukti> mungojelly: I'm sure I could benefit from that, yeah
11:28 < sezycei> That's why "Key" sounds awfully inappropriate as a name.
Hahaha. Because the answer to that riddle is "key".
11:28 < lojbab> Ilmen: presumably spoken chats means Skype.  No idea how to
do that.  No microphone on my machine that I know of, either.
11:28 < durka42> argh
11:28 < durka42> he was just trying to tell you that we do it
11:28 < sezycei> lojbab, I think they spoke on Mumble, actually.
11:29 < durka42> the response to "X happens" doesn't always have to be "I
don't know how to X"
11:29 < durka42> no offense meant
11:29 < mungojelly> lojbab: don't you have a regular phone, though? i don't
understand why lojbanists have never talked on the phone. have we? have you=
?
11:29 < mungojelly> lojbab: i thought maybe the habit of not talking on the
phone just went all the way back to when long distance cost extra, and
we've just never changed it
11:29 < selpahi> sezycei: What are you using to learn Lojban at the moment?
11:30 < Ilmen> lojbab: well we've been using Mumble, not Skype. I just
wanted to let you know that Lojban has reached the stage where people can
actually maintain spoken discussions in it during more than one hour :)
11:30 < noras> Just how often do people have to "learn" lojban?
11:30 < mungojelly> yeah, the age of spoken lojban is beginning, this is
the time
11:30 < sezycei> selpahi, the Wave Lessons. I've got to go right now,
though. I will be back in a couple hours. co'o ro do
11:30 < lojbab> mungojelly: We were the first couple who spoke Lojban.  Our
wedding vows were in preliminary Lojban in 1987, and we spoke it for a
couple of hours on the honeymoon, each of us with maybe 300 words of
vocabulary (different words for each of us, ...
11:31 < selpahi> mi nelci la sezycei
11:31 < noras> Umm... Yesour long distance costs extra - still
11:31 < lojbab> so much of the conversation was explaining the words we
were using,
11:31 < mungojelly> noras: if you come back from a few months away, you
usually have to pick up just a few new cmavo and a few new lujvo.
11:31 < mukti> ie caicni fi lo jbobau
11:32 < lojbab> Using Lojban to do something other than talk about Lojban
has generally been difficult.  Lack of commitment to spend the time.
11:32 < lojbab> I
11:32 < noras> mungojelly: and where do you pick them up from?
11:32 < Ilmen> lojbab: I'm glad you and nora honored us of you presence. :)
11:32 < Ilmen> I've gotta take my leave. Goodbye everyone.
11:32 < mungojelly> noras: here. lojban as a spoken language was born right
here.
11:32 < selpahi> Bye Ilmen
11:32 < mukti> co'o la .Ilmen.
11:32 < Ilmen> co'o
11:32 < lojbab> My long term project was and remains translation of part of
Burton's Arabian Nights, which I did a few pages of more than 20 years ago,
11:33 < mungojelly> noras: there's also other fora now. twitter is picking
up, more people are "tu'itsku" (posting to twitter) as we've been saying,
"tu'itsku" was one of the new words i had to learn recently. :)
11:33 < mukti> lojbab: Have you published any of your progress?
11:33 < noras> zo'o lojban as a "spoken" language - here on IRC.  I'm
"speaking" now?
11:33 < mungojelly> noras: well, before that it was just a literary
language, just translations. it's finally making the transition to being
spoken out loud just right around now.
11:34 < mungojelly> noras: but for a while the main way it was spoken was
here in text. slowing it down to the speed of text made it so more people
could be included, i guess. there wasn't enough people at a level to speak
out loud before now.
11:35 < durka42> I don't see IRC as very slow, .u'i
11:35 < selpahi> We speak (write) very quickly
11:35 < noras> No twitter.  No cell phone.
11:35 < mungojelly> durka42: well, slow as in, if someone's typing at a
slightly different speed, or looking up words, they're not just lost
11:35 < mungojelly> noras: they're widely available, you know?
11:36 < durka42> mungojelly: right. text is not ephemeral as speech is, so
you can look stuff up
11:36 < mungojelly> the company i use is $100 up front for a phone but then
the monthly plans go down to $5. there's another company called scratch
wireless where they have $0/month plans.
11:36 < lojbab> durka: You are correct that it doesn't have to be "I don't
know how".  But I am now in my 60s and learning new stuff is harder than it
used to be,  And I find it harder to be motivated to learn things.  Not
that I can't, but it just never seems to happen.
11:37 < mungojelly> ok but if you don't care about lojban--?
11:37 < mungojelly> i can understand, hey, i don't care about lojban, not
that interested any more. lots of people have gone.
11:37 < lojbab> mumble ki'a
11:37 < mungojelly> but here you are, telling us in #lojban that you're not
interested? doesn't add up :p
11:37 < mungojelly> lojbab: na lujvo
11:38 < mungojelly> lojbab: mumble is a voice chat program
11:38 < mungojelly> mumble kinda sucks and it's kinda awesome. it's not
really meant for chatting in lojban, i feel like. it's meant for first
person shooter team coordination. i have no idea if it's good for that. it
has special tools for sharing where you are on the game map or something.
11:39 < mungojelly> but for whatever reason it's what we started using
years ago to have voice chats. but there wasn't the critical mass to get
them together very often.
11:39 < selpahi> Mumble is fine.
11:39 < mukti> It's fired me up to listen to the Mumble sessions. I'm going
to have to get my courage up to join in.
11:39 < lojbab> mungojelly: we have had a couple of Lojban conversations on
the telephone, again back in the 90s.  We used to do it every year at
LogFest - telephoning Nick Nicolas in Australia, and once we called xorxes
in Argentina.  I was probably at that time
11:40 < mungojelly> lojbab: noras: you don't pay for outgoing long distance
do you? we could arrange times for people to call you.
11:40 < lojbab> the most fluent LOjbanist other than those two.
11:40 < durka42> or the most fluent LEjbanist, amirite
11:40 < durka42> zo'o
11:41 < mungojelly> from my perspective as a speaker of Lojban, this
"official" "meeting" stuff doesn't matter much to me. it's not like i have
to speak the way y'all write down, or even teach it to nintadni.
11:41 < mungojelly> but a couple new speakers of the language, htat'd be
huge.
11:41 < mungojelly> and you already have an intimate knowledge of the
grammar and a basic vocabulary.
11:41 < lojbab> mukti: I think I posted what I had once to the list, when I
rediscovered it after many years.
11:42  * selpahi finds out how many words the English text has
11:42 < mungojelly> if you started speaking lojban it'd be important not
just in terms of your practical contributions, though those would be
important too, it would be important emotionally i feel like
11:42 < mukti> lojban: I'd love to read it if you rediscover it.
11:42 < mungojelly> that'd really be the beginning of a new age, where
lojban really becomes the language of our community
11:43 < mukti> Oh, also: If the source code for the gismu generator
resurface, I'm still very much interested in that.
11:43 < mungojelly> i think we can make lojban the language our community
shares, and i think we can do it without fracturing the community, but to
do that we have to teach you lojban. it's an easy language, nu'e
11:44 < mukti> mungojelly: It makes sense to me that the more lojban is
used, the more the language itself will act as a centripetal force
11:45 < mungojelly> well we're already to the point where not all lojban
speakers are competent in english. we're already there.
11:45 < selpahi> It has  250830 words
11:45 < selpahi> Very long
11:45 < mungojelly> i have emails in my inbox to respond to from lojbanists
complaining, in lojban, that they don't speak english, so why are the
definitions of new words for instance only in english? fair question, no?
11:46 < mukti> Also, I think it will calm some worries about some
differences among speakers, since they will appear as differences of style
rather than threats to a definitive representation of the language
11:46 < selpahi> Yes, fair question
11:46 < lojbab> mungojelly, I understand the official meeting stuff is not
important to you.  But that is what I was doing all those years while
others started learning the language, and it led eventually to CLL. And I
was not able to shed the responsibility until Robin took on
11:46 < selpahi> Maybe if you could upload pictures to jbovlaste....
11:46 < mungojelly> all the way up until right this moment, we have been a
community whose lingua franca is english. we've discussed in english a
theoretical other language lojban.
11:46 <@rlpowell> lojbab: Hi.
11:47 < mukti> coi la camgusmis
11:47 < noras> .ui co'i doi robyn.
11:47 < mungojelly> .ui .i'i coi la .camgusmis. .io sai
11:47 < lojbab> much of it in 2002.  coi camgusmis.
11:47 < mungojelly> .i la .camgusmis. pa moi lo'i jbopli je'u .io
11:47 <@rlpowell> mi milxe lo ka bilma
11:47 < mungojelly> .uu
11:47 <@rlpowell> .i ji'a mi nitcu co kurji ky .i la'a mi na mutce jundi
11:48 < mungojelly> ko ky. kurji
11:48 < noras> co'i si coi
11:48 < lojbab> mukti, I have it.  I may repost it after looking at it.
11:48 < mukti> ui sai
11:48 < mungojelly> .i ko cusku lu coi jbojbe li'u ky. se vau mi doi la
.camgusmis.
11:48 < selpahi> lo nu penmi cu mulno
11:49 < mungojelly> i mean it's an awkward thing. you can't START
discussing making lojban in lojban. so naturally it was in some other
language. and so then necessarily there's an awkward transition point.
11:49 < durka42> coi rlpowell
11:50 < mungojelly> the thing is, it's gotten so awkward, it's so past due.
it has been spoken already for a long time now, by some people. but we're
retaining this english structure we built up, because changing languages
changes the power dynamic.
11:50 < lojbab> mukti: the random sentence generator is pretty fun for
learning too.  It even sometimes makes sense, in a Zen sort of way.
11:50 < mukti> lojbab: Maybe we can integrate it into one of the chat bots
here.
11:50 <@rlpowell> Can anyone still make it compile?
11:51 < selpahi> We used to have such a bot
11:51 < mungojelly> la mlismu xu cu terta'a .i mi pu nelci la mlismu
11:51 < selpahi> lojbot
11:51 < mungojelly> it's weird, i find it hard not to speak lojban here. i
finally passed some point in my mind where lojban is the easy side
sometimes.
11:51 < mukti> Hmm... I see it linked as a zip. Maybe a good first step
would be github'izing it, provided the license allows.
11:52 < durka42> where's the source
11:52 < durka42> I'm usually pretty good at getting stuff to compile
11:52 < mukti> .oi broken link
11:52 < durka42> we could also make one using the PEG
11:52 < durka42> and some probabilities or something
11:53 < xorxes> wasn't it called norsmu or something like that?
11:53 < selpahi> That exists too
11:53 < mukti> http://www.lojban.org/files/software/rndsen28.zip
11:53 < lojbab> I believe that random sentence generator is working but the
word tables for each level are a little outof date.
11:54 < mungojelly> ok so i tried to ask why we've never used the phone.
the answer i'm hearing is long distance charges, and it's 2015, so.. ok but
whatever. moving on, my next question, dare i ask? what about paper letters=
?
11:54 < mungojelly> lojbab: is there any good reason lojbanists have never
sent one another paper letters? if you say the cost of paper and stamps i'm
gonna cry :(
11:54 < mungojelly> i'll mail you a SASE :(
11:54 < selpahi> Hold your horses
11:54 < mukti> Hmm, that's a binary only distribution.
11:54 < selpahi> I *have* sent a paper letter
11:55 < selpahi> All the way from Germany to Canada
11:55 < mungojelly> selpahi: i've sent a few too
11:55 < selpahi> I know some of the French learners were thinking about
sending letters to each other as well, but it seems they still thought it
was too difficult for them
11:55 < mungojelly> selpahi: but i mean, going all the way back, why hasn't
there been a culture of lojban correspondance? why isn't that what's done?
is it just because lojban coincided with the internet and it never seemed
necessary?
11:55 < selpahi> I think so
11:56 < selpahi> Email is comfortable, it's quick and cheap
11:56 < selpahi> Sure, it's less personal
11:56 < mungojelly> that almost makes sense, except lojbab and noras are
here telling us they're not much online, so.. why not paper then?
11:56 < mungojelly> i really enjoy writing paper letters
11:56 < lojbab> random sentence generated: fu lo vi grusi se rivbi cu te
salpo go'i ko vau
11:56 < selpahi> A letter is a bigger commitment. What do you write in such
a letter if you have nothing to talk about?
11:56 < selpahi> It's not easy for everyone
11:56 < mungojelly> one thing you can do with written lojban that's hard on
the internet is to like mindmap it, to write bridi as graphs
11:57 < noras> Paper letters are fine.  I might lurk on IRC, too (though
I've tried that unsuccessfully previously).  I prefer to "listen" for a
while to catch up on the grammar and words.
11:57 < mukti> hmm... salpo5 ?
11:57 < lojbab> the random sentence generator was converted to VB a few
years ago, and hence should be usable anywhere.
11:57 <@rlpowell> mungojelly: I would expect the chevaliers would ejnoy
paper, although of course they'd have to confirm.
11:58 < mungojelly> rlpowell: yes i'm trying that again now at this late
date, but what i'm wondering is why that never happened before? why..
like.. why did lojbanistan have so much trouble getting in communication
11:59 <@rlpowell> For myself, I absolutely hate paper letters.
11:59 <@rlpowell> Can't speak to anyone else.
11:59 < mungojelly> rlpowell: like why have lojbanists never called one
another on the phone? is it just a habit from all the way back when long
distance cost money?
11:59 <@rlpowell> I've called Bob several times.
12:00 < mungojelly> maybe it's just that it takes such an intense *habit*
of communication for it to help as far as building a language
12:00 < lojbab> mungojelly: not sending paper letters: The main reason I
know of is that as a community many of us have nothing to say to anyone
else in particular.  Not even in English, much less Lojban.  I have no idea
what anyone is interested in (and I make no effort to find out_)
12:00 < mukti> It's encouraging to see people meeting weekly on mumble.
12:00 <@rlpowell> ^^ what bob said.  this is what has torpedoed attempts at
voice chat in the past.
12:00 <@rlpowell> mukti: Are they?
12:00 < selpahi> Yes
12:00 <@rlpowell> For how many weeks now, approx?
12:00 < selpahi> Even between weekends
12:01 < selpahi> 3
12:01 <@rlpowell> *nod*
12:01 < mungojelly> mukti: i lurk on mumble a lot more than that, if people
want to start trying to come by random times
12:01 < mukti> rlpowell:
http://mw.lojban.org/lmw/Recordings_of_live_Lojban_discussions
12:01 < xorxes> It works when we play 20 questions
12:01 < lojbab> ... but that leaves only talking in Lojban about Lojban.
Which gets boring  or too technical really quickly.  I'm not a
conversationalist.  A couple sentences and nothing more to say.
12:01 < durka42> mukti: not salpo5, go'i5
12:01 < xorxes> then there's something to talk about
12:01 < mungojelly> rlpowell: i was just thinking today about those old
conversations you had with people on mumble or on something, story time
with uncle robin
12:02 < mungojelly> rlpowell: it seemed like you were annoyed at being the
only person actually at a speaking competence then
12:02 < selpahi> There were many sessions we didn't record, where we talked
about whatever, it was lots of random topics like a normal conversation
would go
12:02 < mukti> durka42: I stand corrected. mabla tanru
12:02 <@rlpowell> mungojelly: At the time that was frustrating for me, yes.
12:03 < mungojelly> rlpowell: it's a funny situation, trying to start
speaking the language, someone has to be first, but then logically there's
no one to talk to.
12:03 <@rlpowell> Heh.  it's a good point.
12:03 < mukti> Earlier this year, when measuring primarily email threads, I
was concerned that lojban use was declining. I've changed my mind.
12:03 < lojbab> You can send email in Lojban to us just as easily as snail
mail.  Nora has generally been faster than me at getting around to
responding, but she reads email less often than me (and I only read every
day or two myself, these days).
12:04 < noras> lojbab and I used to use lojban as a private language when
we didn't want the kids to understand.
12:04 < mungojelly> rlpowell: the lead people kept walking away from it, i
felt like. like years before us, nitcion was fluently talking to no one, so
he left. then you were talking to no one, then i was talking to no one as
you were off somewhere else. it's only now finally that multiple people are
simultaneously able to speak out loud.
12:04 < durka42> .ei mi co'o-zei-co'o
12:04 < mungojelly> noras: yeah i heard that story! i was wondering what
that meant exactly. because you'd just need to use a word or two to suggest
something, so that doesn't mean you're like speaking complicated lojban i
figured.
12:05 < selpahi> Is that story about Nick accurate though? I've also seen
evidence that his involvement as BPFK jatna was the reason why he got sick
of Lojban, and then another explanation would be that he simply had other
stuff to do.
12:05 < mukti> mi co'a co'o zei do doi la durkavore
12:05 < mungojelly> rlpowell: or actulaly now that i think about it maybe
when i was getting to speaking fluency i just wasn't able to socialize with
you much because of la mabla, sorry about that
12:05 < durka42> donco'o
12:05 < durka42> dondi'ai
12:06 < mungojelly> selpahi: i have no idea, that was just my guess. i've
just heard a few things with nick talking lojban, and it's like, whoa,
wait, he was pretty good at it. and there was nobody else then. so it just
makes sense, it makes sense you'd walk away.
12:06 < mungojelly> xorxes seems to have stayed because he likes
translating more than because he likes us :D zo'o
12:07 < mungojelly> seriously though xorxes will talk to us if we make him
but he mostly loves using the language for itself it seems. which makes
sense too.
12:07 < lojbab> selpahi: you are correct  being jatna made Nick frustrated
and he finally quit.  He still di occasional Lojban work for another year
or two, and visited Nora and me a couple of times.
12:07 < noras> Full sentences - things like: xu curmi le nu le bersa cu
jundi le nunsalci
12:07 < mungojelly> first someone tried to learn it, saw no one else was,
and left. then someone learns it to translate stuff into it quietly alone.
12:08 < mungojelly> noras: this is really interesting, you're actually
pretty good at lojban i feel like, but a different lojban than the rest of
us know, i can feel it
12:08 < lojbab> But then he decided that he wanted to have a life, and
Lojban dropped off his priority list.  He also got very angry with me once,
and I am not sure how much that had to do with it.  Robin  continued
contact with him after becoming jatna.
12:09 < mungojelly> noras: if you spoke your lojban to us more i feel like
parts of it would flow into our speech habits and help the whole language,
it would be enriched by those old energies
12:10 < xorxes> mungojelly: I had lots of conversations in Lojban on the
mailing list, not necessarily about Lojban. not just translations.
12:11 < xorxes> I remember the goran period was very prolific
12:11 < mungojelly> i had thought mostly about what we can teach the two of
you about today's lojban, but when i hear you speak it i can feel that you
have something to teach us to, you have an interesting different pespective
on the language.
12:11 < mungojelly> xorxes: what do you mean by the goran period? goran
ki'a?
12:11 < xorxes> Goran was a Croatian lojbanist
12:11 < selpahi> Early 90s
12:12 < mukti> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Goran+Topic
12:12 < mungojelly> oh my, so slightly before my time
12:12 < noras> I have trouble with the mailing list.  Too many to go
through, so I don't bother to take the effort to understand (especially
with rafsi and cmavo I'm not familiar with).
12:13 < selpahi> I know Goran's name because I've read so many old threads
12:13 < mungojelly> noras: what email address do you prefer? i think for
lojbab i have his name @lojban.org is there a noras@lojban.org?
12:13 < mukti> I have Goran as active from 1994-1999. I have you active
from 1998, mungojelly. Maybe there was a bit of overlap?
12:13 < mungojelly> selpahi: you've read everything, you really studied
everything
12:14 < mungojelly> mukti: yeah, the name "goran" does seem familiar, i
just don't seem to recall many details
12:14 < noras> There used to be; maybe still.  I use noras@cox.net now.
But I don't look every day (weekdays are too busy).  If you want to try and
are willing to put up with delayed response, I'm willing.
12:15 < mungojelly> selpahi: one thing i thought while making all my videos
is, well, maybe nobody much cares at the moment, but sometime soon someone
is probably going to get obsessed with learning lojban and want as much
material as possible and watch through all of these, and i guess that was
you
12:16 < mungojelly> noras: i don't mind at all, i've got too many lojban
emails if anything at the moment, i wrote to everyone in lojbanistan in the
past week or two :o
12:16 < selpahi> I guess :)
12:16 < Ilmen> coi
12:16 < Ilmen> ue za'o xu casnu
12:16 < mukti> go'i
12:17 < Ilmen> famcau nunsnu .u'e zo'o
12:17 < selpahi> casnu lo vrici .i lo ba'e lojbangirzu nunpenmi cu mulno
12:17 < mungojelly> noras: but i'd like to write some simple lojban to you
as often as possible just to help you learn it. i can speak simply.
12:17 < xorxes> casnu lo lojbo citri
12:17 <@rlpowell> mungojelly: Nothing you need to apologize for as far as I
know.
12:17 < Ilmen> coi la .camgusmis.
12:17 <@rlpowell> 18-12:08 <      lojbab> But then he decided that he
wanted to have a life, and Lojban dropped off his priority list.  He also
got very angry with me once, and I am not sure how much that had to do with
it.  Robin  continued contact with him after becoming jatna. -- Assuming
you mean Nick, I'm almost certain that had nothing to do with it.
12:18 <@rlpowell> 18-12:04 <       noras> lojbab and I used to use lojban
as a private language when we didn't want the kids to understand. -- That
has worked out less well for us.  :D
12:18 < mungojelly> rlpowell: oh well not really, it's not my fault anyway
it's due to a terrible pharmaceutical la ckiku was taking, but it's
unfortunate
12:18 <@rlpowell> *nod*
12:18 < lojbab> mukti: Burton Arabian Nights beginning has now been posted
to Lojban List.  It may be use obsolete vocabulary, since I originally did
the work before 1994 (and don't remember whether I fixed the thing for
ralfso changes)
12:18 < mungojelly> rlpowell: when you said you were raising some jbojbe, i
was really excited! i wanted so much to help out anyway i could
12:19 < lojbab> rafsi
12:19 < mungojelly> rlpowell: but i couldn't really help much at all
because of la mabla. :(
12:19 < mungojelly> rlpowell: i thought at first like, yay, ok, well i'll
help by making kids videos and stories or something. but really then there
was nothing much i could do.
12:20 < mungojelly> rlpowell: if there's anything i could do to help now
though i'm back to being able to do stuff. la ckiku took the last of that
evil weird stuff at the beginning of october, so as you can see i've been
back to lojban stuff since then.
12:21 < mukti> ki'e la lojbab .i cinri mutce
12:21 < mungojelly> .ie .i'i .i'o cai
12:23 < mungojelly> i think that's modern rafsi, at least i understood all
the lujvo i saw skimming it
12:23 < lojbab> mungojelly: if you cc me on stuff you send Nora, I can tell
her when one arrives.  And maybe I'll answer too (no promises - my shoulder
is going to be dead after all this typing.  rehab has been slow).
12:23 < mungojelly> zo zancevni .i'e
12:24 < selpahi> Yep, looks like new rafsi
12:24 < mungojelly> lojbab: .uu, someone said something to me about your
being injured :(
12:25 < mungojelly> i thought "zancei" to myself yesterday, i just
remembered. i think it was zancei. i looked at a nice tapestry we have of
laxmi and i was thinking of her as a "te latna" in a kinda silly way
12:26 < mungojelly> and then i thought of some lujvo with -cei, i think
zancei, in a much more serious mood
12:27 < Ilmen> zo laxmi ki'a
12:27 < mungojelly> la .laxmis. zancei
12:28 < Ilmen> cevni ma ma
12:28 < mungojelly> .i mamta la .ganec. .iu ka'u
12:28 < mungojelly> .i la .laxmis. cevni lo xindo ro fetsi ckaji .a ro da
12:29 < Ilmen> je'e
12:29 <@rlpowell> 18-12:19 <  mungojelly> rlpowell: but i couldn't really
help much at all because of la mabla. :( -- ;(
12:29 < mungojelly> oh hey idk if we should get into complicated
philosophical conversations in lojban though, we were englishing, happy to
continue that conversation on #jbosnu sometime Ilmen :)
12:29 < Ilmen> je'e .u'i
12:30 < Ilmen> Do you want me to copy all the session's logs to the LLG
list?
12:31 < mungojelly> lojbab: noras: just catching you up. names have pauses
on both sides now, and -la- and -doi- are allowed in names. we tried to
never have -doi- in names, and we failed, so we had to change the rule
rather than hate ourselves forever for not being able to do it. ;)
12:31 < xorxes> Ilmen: it might be helpful for the people who weren"t here
12:32 < Ilmen> je'e xy
12:33 < mungojelly> i love the pauses on both sides of names. the real
reason for it is to make it parse, but i don't think of it that way
exactly, i always think of the aesthetics of it.
12:33 < xorxes> la was probably much more of a problem than doi, it's a
very common syllable
12:33 < mungojelly> to me it's like the . . around the name is its little
space to be in, it's like, hey, check it out, here's a cmevla, floating in
space
12:35 < mungojelly> so i say it with its own little space in the tone of
how i say a sentence, like "mi nelci lo nu mi tavla fo la " pause,
different tone "lojban" pause, back to the main sentence tone "noi xamgu
bangu"
12:35 < selpahi> I always use glottal stops for {.}
12:36 < mungojelly> "lojban" as a word having its own little space, being
sort of other to the sentence, is why i think there's been such a strong
push towards "lo jbobau" lately, for the flow of it
12:36 < mungojelly> it's far out, for people who are away from lojban now,
when they get back the name of the language will have changed on them :o
12:37 < mungojelly> when they left they were "tavla fo la .lojban." and
they'll get back to being "tavla fo lo jbobau"
12:37 < selpahi> It's still known by everyone as la .lojban. but saying
that more than once is annoying to pronounce
12:37 < noras> mi djuno fi la'e zoi kuot. Dot Side kuot.
12:37 < mungojelly> (i exaggerate, of coruse, the word "lojban" is still
widely known and used)
12:38 < cirko> yacc: broda lo broda be ca
12:38 < mensi> (broda {<lo [broda (be {ca KU} BE'O)] KU> VAU})
12:38 < mungojelly> noras: yeah, for a long time it was called Dot Side and
there was a like debate about it. but then gradually the debate ended, it
was resolved in favor of the dot side, as far as actual usage. we mostly
just teach dot side to new students as the way the language works now.
12:39 < lojbab> mungojelly: lemi janco pu xrani ca le pavma'i be le
prulamna'a, i re le ci slusko cu mulpo'u . i  ca le pavpavma'i le mikce cu
cikre .i mi caze'i kakne le nu karce sazri
12:40 < mungojelly> lojbab: .ua bu'o .i la'a pei do mulno kanro binxo ba
.a'o
12:41 < lojbab> mungojelly: I recognize the dotside convention even though
I do not yet use it.  I have expected that it will be one of the earliest
changes adopted once CLL 1.1 is out and it can be proposed as change pages.
12:42 <@rlpowell> The test copy is on its way to me, in theory.
12:42 <@rlpowell> It seems to be on a fairly slow boat.
12:42 < durka42> heh
12:42 < b_jonas> I, of course, don't like the name "lojban" because of its
etymology, so I prefer "jbobau" or "lojbo" even though ultimately it's
derived from "lojban"
12:43 < mungojelly> lojbab: ok? i find the idea of voting whether or not
dot side at this late date a bizarre proposition. selpahi's suggestion to
smash the lujvo space is what's on the actual agenda of the language as far
as i'm concerned, it's not a likely proposal but it's being seriously
considered now in the places such things actually are seriously considered.
12:43 < selpahi> lol
12:43 < mungojelly> the actual agenda of lojban right now is more about
kurtyvla, for instance. are those kurtyvla really going to stay in the
dictionary?
12:44 < selpahi> If people use them.
12:44 < selpahi> Which they (currently) don't
12:44 < mungojelly> if not, how do we go about figuring out which ones to
demote when? what space do we demote them to? these are real on-going
questions
12:44 < mukti> FWIW, I think the discussions from which dotside emerged are
recorded here: http://mw.lojban.org/lmw/BPFK:_Old_Morphology
12:44 < selpahi> I don't think there can be only one dictionary
12:44 < noras> zo kurtyvla ki'a
12:44 < mungojelly> selpahi: there's at least jbovlaste and mlevlaste, now,
so there's at least two
12:44 < selpahi> jbovlaste is where everyone can do anything, but a printed
"official" dictionary would only have words that are used in literature
(for example) or known by everyone
12:45 < mungojelly> noras: there's someone named Curtis Franks making a
bunch of two-syllable cmavo, mostly for obscure math things, and other
people much disapprove
12:45 < selpahi> What I mean to say is that different dictionaries have
different purposes
12:45 < lojbab> I suspect that the dotside convention is indeed a consensus
position,  Originally that was the standard for adoption by BPFK (and then
I decided to allow up to 2 dissenters).  But it still has to be documented,
and it is not yet in CLL.
12:46 < noras> Plus, what is "smash the lujvo space"?
12:46 < mungojelly> but i mean the point is right now we're deciding about
these cmavo curtis is making. toi'e is surviving, others are probably going
to die.
12:46 < selpahi> Nothing that needs to be discussed here
12:46 < selpahi> It's out of place for this occasion
12:46 < noras> je'e
12:47 < mungojelly> so hopefully, since i'm using "toi'e" every day and
lots of other people also are, hopefully at some point that'd be nice to
put in a dictionary so people can understand it. i don't really care
whether you feel like that makes it "official" so much as i'd like it to be
easy for people to understand "toi'e".
12:47 < mungojelly> toi'e is great!! it modifies an attitudinal with
another one.  .oi nai toi'e .o'a nai -- i take pleasure in it, and about
that i'm ashamed
12:47 < lojbab> two syllable cmavo: he can make all the cmavo he wants, but
I simply won't recognize them, and I am unwilling to even try to learn
experimental cmavo when people are making them so frequently.
12:48 < mukti> zo toi'e zo'u .oi nai toi'e .o'a nai doi
12:48 < mungojelly> lojbab: but you can't just do that. it's living, it's
changing, it's real. some of the experimental cmavo are awful. some of them
are used every day, and the language isn't very useful without them.
12:48 < mungojelly> lojbab: we have a cmavo now for talking about selma'o.
12:48 < mungojelly> lojbab: before that what i did for UI was "lo cmavo be
lo selma'o be zo .ui"
12:49 < selpahi> To be fair, you can also say {lo ui zei selma'o}
12:49 < mungojelly> lojbab: it just doesn't work. no one would talk to me
in lojban about selma'o then, because that's silly. now people have started
using lojban to talk about selma'o, because you can say "ma'oi .ui"
12:49 < mungojelly> selpahi: sure, or "zo'ei zo .ui" if you just wanna be
vague :P
12:50 < mungojelly> lojbab: so now there are conversations about selma'o in
lojban all the time, but you have to learn zo ma'oi to understand them.
which isn't difficult at all.
12:50 < lojbab> mungojelly; I can do that and I will do that.  Just as if
someone started adding jabberwocky to their English.   I would likely
consider them to not be trying to communicate with me, and simply reject
it.  I am very much a supporter of a listener-oriented standard.
12:51 < mungojelly> lojbab: .. the difference is that english in both forms
is a living language
12:51 < mungojelly> lojbab: there's only one living form of lojban, and it
uses these few extremely necessary and useful modifications to the draft
version from decades ago
12:52 < mungojelly> again, if you had another lojbanistan somewhere where
this old lojban was spoken, i'd be very interested
12:52 < mungojelly> i'd like to go there and say, ta'i ma do tavla fi lo
selma'o, how do y'all talk about selma'o here anyway
12:52 < Ilmen> As for what experimental cmavo to recognize (when the time
will come), we have search tools allowing us to assess the frequency of use
of words nowadays
12:52 < selpahi> I might be a bit unusual in that I'm a crazy mad tinkerer,
but at the same time hate experimental cmavo.
12:52 < lojbab> I have had no need for any of them, and don't expect to
anytime soon.  I might be wrong about this prediction, but it hasn't
happened yet.
12:53 < selpahi> I *know* the experimentals though.
12:53 < mungojelly> but if it's just a THEORY of a language, then i can't
accomodate it. as far as i know there was no way to talk about lots of
stuff in that old language, we tried and failed and made this one instead.
it's very similar, you can count the experimental cmavo you NEED to
understand most texts on the fingers of your hands.
12:54 < Ilmen>
http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=3DExperimental_gismu_and_cmavo_frequen=
cy_lists
12:54 < mungojelly> it hasn't been broken, it's still a very lojbanic
lojban. the cmavo we've adopted are just a few conveniences that proved
necessary.
12:54 < Ilmen> ^ A manually compiled list of experimental cmavo and gismu
sorted by frequency of use
12:55 < lojbab> Then maybe I'll change my mind.  But it hasn't yet
happened, and I don't understand toi'e or zo'ei or ma'oi (the three I see
above) at all, and I can't see much use in trying (yet).
12:55 < selpahi> Ilmen: I count three or four words on that list I consider
necessary for me.
12:55 < selpahi> (cmavo)
12:55 < mungojelly> la'oi -- allows you to use foreign names. i could say
"without excessive quoting" but the fact is that amount of quoting means
you just can't use foreign names in fluid speech. now you can.
12:55 < selpahi> And for all of them I would prefer a CV'V
12:56 < mukti> {di'ai} seems to get a lot of use, whatever its merits
12:56 < mungojelly> lojbab: zo'ei just means "something related to," i'm
sure you can understand it
12:56 < Ilmen> I'm of the opinion that many many cmavo are not *strictly*
necessary. If verbosity is not a problem for you, you can very well speak
lojban with a few dozen of cmavo. Many cmavo are convenient shorthands
though, in my humble opinion.
12:56 < selpahi> Many experimental cmavo are *lazy* shorthands
12:57 < mungojelly> lo'ai/sa'ai/le'ai is necessary for corrections, we were
already importing something to do it when we didn't have those, we were
using s/// from unix
12:57 < mukti> {ko'oi} is one that seems difficult to express through other
means
12:57 < mukti> Maybe possible if you make a very odd use of doi
12:57 < selpahi> {ko'oi} is important, but needs to be {koi}
12:57 < mungojelly> i've been really enjoying using {ko'oi} the past few
days, nice feeling to it
12:57 < selpahi> :P
12:57 < lojbab> I won't remember it tomorrow, and it isn't in the 1994
cmavo list, which is the *only* one I use.  So it is pragmatically useless
for me.
12:57 < Ilmen> ie la selpa'i
12:58 < selpahi> .o'u bu'o doi la .ilmen. .i mi nitcu lo ka terpa lo ka
xusra lo simsa ca ku
12:58 < Ilmen> mukti: ko'oi do klama ~=3D mi cpedu fi do fe lo ka klama
12:58 < mungojelly> {ra'oi} for rafsi quotes makes it approachable to
discuss lujvo making. i'm adding another one {ta'ai} to mark word shapes,
and then i think we'll really be able to have high-level lujvo making
discussions.
12:58 < selpahi> .i lo banfi'i na zanru su'o nu cenba djica
12:58 < mukti> I expect in lojban, as in other languages, speaker's need to
be aware of the sensitivities and needs of listeners. I don't use strong
language around older relatives. I don't use my full vocabular with
children, etc.
12:59 < selpahi> {ko'oi} is broader than cpedu
12:59 < selpahi> Just like {ko} is
12:59 < Ilmen> As for {ca'e}, I proposed {jetrinsku}
12:59 < mukti> I don't use a full range of idioms when speaking with
non-fluent speakers.
12:59 < b_jonas> mungojelly: I don't like those cmavo. I think "zo'oi" is
enough. if you want to clarify whether you're naming a person or mountain
or animal species, you just add a relative cloause
12:59 < Ilmen> selpahi: then, we just need to create the appropriate
predicate.
12:59 < mungojelly> mukti: yeah that's just what i'm planning to do is
write baby talk to lojbab and noras, but i don't see why they should aspire
to that instead of wanting to catch up with the real language :/
12:59 < mungojelly> b_jonas: hm? enough for what? do you speak fluent
lojban? english is enough for lots of stuff :/
12:59 < selpahi> Ilmen: Yes, but it's hard. It's like cpecu ja minde ja ...
13:00 < selpahi> cpedu*
13:00 < Ilmen> For question illocutions, I suggest {briretsku}.
13:00 < b_jonas> mungojelly: no, I don't speak fluent lojban
13:00 < lojbab> Since I haven't yet used fluent speech or anything near to
it, and since I work in translation, I have no need of a shorter form for
quoting non-Lojban names.  It is NOT shorter for me, because I don't
recognize the word, and my mental translator then shuts down.
13:00 < mungojelly> b_jonas: it's a pain in the ass to say anything other
than {la'oi} if you're actually speaking out loud about something and want
to say its name
13:00 < mukti> Ilmen: Is {ko'oi} always {cpedu}? I have the sense that {ko}
is more broad than that.
13:00 < Ilmen> selpahi: if one can define ko'oi, one can define the
predicate equivalent. :)
13:00 < b_jonas> selpahi: oh, I _like_ "ko'oi", it's useful to mark clauses
imperative or subjunctive. mind you, this might be a bad influence of
Hungarian.
13:00 < mungojelly> i don't think we have a brivla that means what {ko'oi}
seems to me to mean
13:01 < b_jonas> mungojelly: um, sorry, I'm fine with "la'oi" and "zo'oi"
13:01 < Ilmen> ko'oi zei ko'oi
13:01 < Ilmen> zo'o
13:01 < mukti> Can there be a bad influence of Hungarian. :)
13:01 < selpahi> koisku zo'o
13:01 < mungojelly> b_jonas: oh ok which ones seem extra to you? at first i
was surprised by ma'oi and ra'oi, but then i was so pleased by the
conversations they allowed
13:01 < b_jonas> mungojelly: I just don't like the more specific ones like
"ra'oi" or whathever other ones there are for person names, mountain and
river names, town names, species names (I think logbau actually has this
last one)
13:01 < Ilmen> ke'u, I suggest {briretsku} for expanding question words.
13:01 < b_jonas> mungojelly: what does "ma'oi" do?
13:02 < Ilmen> (with this, question words become replaced with {ce'u})
13:02 < b_jonas> mungojelly: I mean, "zo'oi" and "la'oi" are like "zoi" and
"la'o" respectively, right?
13:02 < lojbab> Ilmen: I agree with you on many cmavo being unnecessary.
And since I learned to speak it when most people were FAR behind me in
learning cmavo, I learned in my listener-oriented way to be aas verbose as
needed.  I have ...
13:02 < mungojelly> b_jonas: it takes an example word, and gives you the
selma'o that word belongs to
13:02 < b_jonas> the first one quotes a word, the second one refers to
something by a name
13:02 < b_jonas> je'e
13:02 < lojbab> no problem with being verbose.  I don't code in APL or C
either.
13:03 < Ilmen> je'e
13:03 < mukti> lojbab: APL and C being verbose languages? Or terse ones?
13:04 < mungojelly> y'all would really hate a style of cmavo i've started
inventing in my jbopeisku then
13:05 < mungojelly> something i've noticed is lojban feels totally
different in these different contexts. it's so different typed in irc than
it was on the mailing list, that was a huge shift.
13:05 < mungojelly> and it's also such a different language if you're
hearing it. different shapes come out, different parts of the language
suggest themselves.
13:05 < Ilmen> ie
13:05 < lojbab> selpahi: .ie me na zanru lo li'i cenba  That comes from
being an old fogey. %^)
13:06 < mungojelly> but it really goes even crazier if you think in it. and
the stragest i guess is dreams. dream lojban is always so grammatically
strange, for me.
13:06 < cntrational> whoa holy shit
13:06 < cntrational> lojbab is actually here
13:06 < mukti> ie sai
13:06 < mungojelly> cntrational: and he's been speaking lojban to us even
:D :D
13:06 < Ilmen> .i'e sai troci lo ka jbobau pilno
13:06 < cntrational> the world is coming to an end
13:06 < Ilmen> io
13:06  * cntrational buys a ticket for a cryoship
13:06 < Ilmen> xD
13:07 < mungojelly> i wonder sometimes whether i should even say the lojban
that comes to me from my unconscious, lest it come to life
13:07 < mungojelly> but anyway there's no way any of you will like this
idea so it's safe ;)
13:07 < cntrational> languages shouldn't require much conscious thought
13:08 < mungojelly> in my thinking in lojban i made a new sort of cmavo
that's like CV'V'V or CV'V'V'V with a normal cmavo on the front, and then
it's a more gobbly crunchy version of it
13:08 < mukti> lo munje cu co'a ki fanmo gi'o nai cfari
13:09 < mukti> (does that apply {co'a} to both terms?)
13:09 < mungojelly> cntrational: i'd never spoken lojban without thinking
about it carefully until this period practicing. it feels really weird
actually. i'm starting to believe that Sapir Whorf thing, seriously. :o
13:09 < cntrational> mungojelly: quelle terpa
13:10 < b_jonas> .i ta'o ma lojbo cmene do doi la'o di. mungojelly .di
13:10 < lojbab> they shouldn't require conscious thought, but I haven't had
a Lojban-only thought since around 1991.  The language changed and my mind
could not accomodate a language changing noticeably fast in real time.
13:11 < cntrational> lojbab: i'm a native speaker of telugu, but pretty
much all my thoughts in telugu use english loans
13:11 < mungojelly> but like zo du'o'ai is an example from my own jbopeisku
(thinking in lojban) dialect. it means (to me) "intends to know".  like "lo
prenu du'o'ai ma kau klama" the person intends to know who goes. *this is
not a proposal for non-mungojelly-brain lojban do not use* (:
13:11 < mungojelly> b_jonas: zo .tel. .e zo .selkik. .e lo'u stela selckiku
le'u mu'a mi jbocme
13:12 < xorxes> mungojelly: at least the cmavo zo'o'o has been around for
decades
13:12 < mungojelly> xorxes: what does that mean?
13:12 < mungojelly> xorxes: is it for christmas jokes?
13:12 < cntrational> whoa xorxes is here too
13:12 < selpahi> On christmas we say {xo'o'o}
13:13 < selpahi> And all the {santa} jokes
13:13 < b_jonas> je'e
13:13 < lojbab> So I stopped trying.  I see no need for la'oi?? because I
never even use la'o.  I use la zoi kuot ... kuot (which will become illegal
under the new proposal on glides, so that will make it even less likely
that I use Lojban.
13:13 < mukti> Including the Hell Santa jokes.
13:13 < lojbab> Language evolves, but I don't evolve quick enough.
13:13 < mungojelly> lojbab: whether you use them isn't the point. i'm very
happy to see you USE the lojban that feels natural to you. very happy. i
want to see in your speech what you want lojban to be.
13:13 < selpahi> They come with {santa} yes :)
13:14 < mukti> Only if you've been naughty.
13:14 < And> _du'o'ai_ -- I like it.
13:14 < cntrational> and And!
13:14 < mungojelly> lojbab: but also-- you have to hear how other people
say it. it's easy to learn {la'oi}, that's why it's a good cmavo, that's
why it lived, because it's really mnenomic. it's a living language with
living things that are memorable and learnable because of selection.
13:14 < cntrational> is this a mriste invasion
13:14 < selpahi> {xe santa} is a punishment for badly behaving children?
Now I see.
13:15 < mungojelly> cntrational: yah there was an arranged meeting earlier,
it's gone into za'o
13:15 < selpahi> cntrational: The LLG had an IRC meeting here a few hours
ago. Some are still here
13:15 < cntrational> i see
13:15 < mukti> Bad children are kept in line by the threat that fat gismu
sneak down the cimni in the middle of the night.
13:15 < selpahi> Most gismu would be too bloated to get through the cimni
13:15 < mungojelly> an infinite chimney gif would be a good illustration
for cimni
13:16 < mungojelly> i searched for "lojban" on pinterest and i found there
some awesome illustrations of gismu that i hadn't seen before, they chose
really evocative pictures
13:17 < mungojelly> so much better than when i learned. i learned from
those same lists lojbab has been talking about. don't get me wrong, lojbab,
i love those lists to death.
13:17 < b_jonas> mungojelly: did they use a black panther, a yellow
panther, or a tiger for {tirxu}?
13:17 < b_jonas> black panther would be the best
13:17 < mungojelly> cmavo_selmaho_order.txt for instance has a special
place in my heart
13:17 < lojbab> mungojelly: but also-- you have to hear how other people
say it: No I don't!  I just ignore it and don't speak Lojban.  It has
worked for me  for 25 odd years.  And that is why I have always considered
my most likely Lojban ventures will be translations, ...
13:17 < mungojelly> but gismu.txt is probably where i spent the most time.
endless hours reading that thing over and over again.
13:18 < lojbab> because then I don't have to deal with all these neologisms=
.
13:18 < b_jonas> lojbab: correct. translations and writing is the way you
spread the language and how you speak it.
13:18 < mungojelly> lojbab: um, no, you can't speak a language without also
hearing it. then you have to invent every construction yourself, it's
tedious. when you hear other people talk you can take things from the way
they express themselves-- take just the parts you like, of course.
13:18 < Ilmen> mungojelly: I'm also using cmavo_selmaho_order.txt
13:18 < b_jonas> lojbab: just committee meetings and decisions don't make a
language, it's the text and instructional materials and tools that matter
13:19 < lojbab> gismu.txt and cmavo.txt are my joy.  But alas, I now have
Windows 7, and my old DOS "List" program doesn't work, so I don't have a
quick-lookup ability anymore.  It is hunt through the directories and load
into a text editor.  Usually not worth the effort.
13:19 < mungojelly> i mean like noras earlier said something with "le
nunsalci" and now that's in my mind, i liked that, i liked the feel of
that. i might well soon say exactly "le nunsalci" lazily echoing her. but
more likely i'll work it into my own feeling of the language in ways i
don't consciously understand.
13:19 < cntrational> i use vlaste :r
13:20 < cntrational> vlaste: soviet
13:20 < vlaste> soviet =3D Soviet
13:20 < cntrational> pff
13:20 < cntrational> vlaste: soviet lojban
13:20 < vlaste> 5 results: soviet,
jbojevysofkemsuzgugje'ake'eborkemfaipaltrusi'oke'ekemgubyseltru, sofybakni,
sofygu'e, sesre
13:20 < mungojelly> en: sesre
13:20 < mensi> sesre =3D x1 reflects USSR (Soviet Union)/Soviet
culture/Soviet nationality in aspect x2 |>>> softo doesn't mean Soviet !
13:20 < mensi> Besides, some modern Russians hate Soviet period of their
country. What is more, Russian Empire, USSR and Russian
13:20 < mensi> Federation are three different countries and CIS is not a
country at all. Cf. softo, rusko, vukro, slovo, gugdesu'u,
13:20 < mensi> soviet. |>>> VesRul
13:20 < mungojelly> .ua ru'e ru'e
13:20 < Ilmen> .u'i
13:21 < b_jonas> lojbab: in case you care, I use this reformatting of the
gismu list: http://www.math.bme.hu/~ambrus/pu/lojban-chapter-fold100.txt
13:21 < Ilmen> I wonder whether Lojbab heard any Lojban song, except maybe
the one Selpahi sent him some time ago on the mriste
13:21 < b_jonas> it's not perfect, but it's what I'm using right now
13:21 < Ilmen> unless it was a poem
13:21 < selpahi> It was a poem I wrote and recorded spontaneously
13:21 < Ilmen> je'e .i'e
13:22 < lojbab> evocative pictures that probably violate someones
copyright.  I am still old fashioned on that stuff.  I can't draw worth
beans and presume that any other art I see is probably being used illegally=
.
13:22 < cntrational> some day
13:22 < cntrational> i will make j-core remixes of selpahi's songs
13:23 < cntrational> conlang music tends to be folkish stuff :c really
boring
13:23 < lojbab> mungojelly:  then you have to invent every construction
yourself, it's tedious.... Yes, it is, but I have never had any desire to
do otherwise.
13:24 < cntrational> where's the high bpm madness
13:24 < noras> What do you mean by Lojban song?  We did le ci cribe at one
of our old Logfests (it's a sagdraci - I call it an operettina); but, it's
all to known tunes.
13:24 < selpahi> There is real music nowadays
13:24 < selpahi> in Lojban
13:24 < selpahi> http://mw.lojban.org/lmw/Lojban_music
13:25 < lojbab> b_jonas  just committee meetings and decisions don't make a
language:  Of course not.  But they make a language user's group, the
existence of which has given others a language.
13:25 < Ilmen> Yeah, Guskant and Selpahi made some very good songs; I've
heard that Djemynai is also making a Lojban album
13:25 < selpahi> A rap album!
13:26  * mungojelly also made some songs but doesn't get any credit in
these conversations :(
13:26 < lojbab> call it "my gift to humanity" perhaps.  Except of course
JCB and others were the ones who made everything I do possible.
13:26 < mungojelly> now that la mabla's over maybe i can produce something
better so y'all will believe in it :P
13:27 < selpahi> mungojelly: There is probably a distinction between songs
with and without background music
13:27 < selpahi> Your songs are listed in the table above
13:27 < mungojelly> selpahi: that could be it. but i think it's probably
mostly production quality. if i produced a quality acapella track people
could be down with that.
13:28 < selpahi> Acapellas are nice for remixes
13:28 < mungojelly> selpahi: yesssss my songs are listed, but what i mean
is, when people talk about music in lojban, your name is about a thousand
times more salient than mine :D
13:29 < Ilmen> As for the IRC logs, shall I put them on pastbin or directly
in a mail?
13:29 < lojbab> b_jonas: I use this reformatting:  I need something to read
the list with.  Preferably NOT a text editor, because I'll accidentally
make changes  (this was a real problem when my lists were the master lists
for the entire project).
13:29 < selpahi> Ilmen: Did you remove joins/leaves?
13:29 < Ilmen> Well, under Windows you can mark a file as "read-only" so
that you cannot change its content accidentaly
13:30 < mukti___> I greatly appreciate LLG's role in propagating Lojban.
Much credit is due.
13:30 < Ilmen> (one need to do a right click on the file's icon and go into
the file properties, and check a ckeckbox "read-only", if I'm not mistaken)
13:30 < lojbab> I need to quit due to pain level getting too high.  I won't
sign off yet, but no more typing.
13:31 < Ilmen> Okay
13:32 < Ilmen> Good luck with your shoulder, Lojbab
13:32 < Ilmen> Thank you for having taken part in the discussion. :)
13:32 < mungojelly> lojbab: .uu di'ai (sorry you don't feel well, good
fortune to you)
13:32 < Ilmen> .a'o kanro zenba
13:33 < mukti___> Thank you for organizing this IRC session. I hope you
feel better soon.
13:34 < b_jonas> lojbab, which refromatting ki'a?
13:34 < b_jonas> co'o lojbab
13:35 < Ilmen> selpahi: My IRC client automatically separate the actual
discussion from the notifications (join/quit...) into two separate pannels
13:35 < Ilmen> *panels
13:35 < selpahi> Ah ok
13:37 < noras> Lobab comment: "reformatting ki'a": The fold100.txt you
referred to about 10 minutes ago.
13:37 < noras> lobab si lojbab
13:38 < b_jonas> je'e
13:40  * nuzba @DrSpocktopus: @mollymcghee sorry lojban [
http://bit.ly/1zq1LdP]
13:40  * nuzba @WiFiCable: @IceDragoneu Lojban bitte [http://bit.ly/1B5Zwdx=
]
13:43 < Ilmen> ua nai
13:43 < selpahi> You need the context to understand
13:43 < Ilmen> li'a
13:43 < selpahi> In this case don't bother
13:43 < selpahi> it's not very interesting
13:44  * Ilmen is trying to find out where to cut the log
13:44 < selpahi> xu do pu tcidu lo lisri pe lo tsanuki zi'e poi la .tijlan.
pu finti .i da pu tu'itsku jungau fi lo du'u zasti
13:45 < Ilmen> mi frimo'i tu'a lo tu'itsku .i ku'i lo lisri na slabu gi'e
ku'i se kucli ja'a ku
13:45 < selpahi> .i mi pu spuda fi lo me la snime blabi moi
13:45 < selpahi>
http://www.lojban.org/corpus/show/la%20katcikatcik%20zei%20cmana
13:48 < selpahi> za'a la .tijlan. cu fanva pu za lo nanca be li ji'i pa pi
mu
13:49 < cntrational> la .amazon. ca'a vecnu lo remsmima'e ku
13:50 < b_jonas> i zo remsmima'e ki'a
13:50 < lojbab> co'o rodo
13:50 < noras> mi ji'a nitcu fa le nu cliva .i co'o rodo

--089e0141a160d1e6e3050cfc1e84
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">IRC log. Let me try to paste it here. All dates are in PST=
.<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2015-01-11 2=
0:39 GMT+03:00 Gleki Arxokuna <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gleki=
.is.my.name@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com</a>&gt;=
</span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0=
.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-s=
tyle:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><b=
r></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">So here is my=
 list in order of priority:</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">1. So the top p=
riority for me is CLL, version 1.1.</div></div></div></blockquote><div>That=
&#39;s what was mostly discussed.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;bo=
rder-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">=
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">2. T=
he next must be the hosting in case ma&#39;a lose the current one. Other is=
sues depend on having a website. That&#39;s why it&#39;s important.</div></=
div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not relevant since Robin said he=
 would continue providing hosting.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>=
Now the log. A copy is at=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=3DF=
sAq8JEC">http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=3DFsAq8JEC</a></div><div><br></div><=
div><div>07:50 &lt; selpahi&gt; doi la .xorxes. do ma jinvi lo si&#39;o raf=
si joi lo si&#39;o lujvo .i xu do pu troci lo ka mo&#39;icli ro rafsi .i xu=
 jinvi lo du&#39;u plixau</div><div>07:50 &lt; mukti&gt; 10 minutes. Sendin=
g out my BPFK proposal to the llg-members mriste.</div><div>07:50 &lt; glek=
i&gt; lo nu morji ro da na dunli lo nu morji so&#39;i da</div><div>07:50 &l=
t; selpahi&gt; .i mi pu za stidi lo du&#39;u vimcu lo rafsi</div><div>07:50=
 &lt; selpahi&gt; .u&#39;e</div><div>07:51 &lt; selpahi&gt; li&#39;a doi la=
 gleki</div><div>07:51 &lt; gleki&gt; ju&#39;osai so&#39;o lo rafsi ka&#39;=
e plixau</div><div>07:51 &lt; selpahi&gt; ju&#39;o</div><div>07:51 &lt; xor=
xes&gt; doi la selpa&#39;i mi na pu troci lo ka cilre .i mi troci lo ka riv=
bi lo lujvo</div><div>07:52 &lt; selpahi&gt; .a&#39;u .i mi ca&#39;o simsa<=
/div><div>07:52 &lt; menli&gt; mi pu simsa zukte ca lo nu mi nintadni</div>=
<div>07:52 &lt; selpahi&gt; .i mi pu zu pilno so&#39;i za&#39;e zei lujvo g=
i&#39;e ja&#39;e bo rarna mo&#39;icli so&#39;i rafsi .i ku&#39;i ca ku mi j=
invi lo drata</div><div>07:52 &lt; menli&gt; .i mi pu se tcaci lo ka tolcaf=
ne fa lo nu ce&#39;u lo lujvo cu pilno</div><div>07:52 &lt; gleki&gt; i ku&=
#39;i mu&#39;a zo muvdygau zo&#39;u lo&#39;u jai gau ui ge&#39;e u&#39;i bu=
&#39;o muvdu fai le&#39;u vlipa zmadu i za&#39;adai mi pu setca so&#39;isai=
 valsi</div><div>07:53 &lt; mungojelly&gt; coi jai daspo zo&#39;o be la .lo=
jban.</div><div>07:54 &lt; gleki&gt; no&#39;i va&#39;i mi xusra lo du&#39;u=
 lo lujvo na kakne pe&#39;a tu&#39;a lo infiksi valsi=C2=A0</div><div>07:54=
 &lt; gleki&gt; i nabmi</div><div>07:54 &lt; gleki&gt; i ku&#39;i lo rarbau=
 cu simsa</div><div>07:54 &lt; mungojelly&gt; .i li&#39;a lo lujvo ciste cu=
 plixau .i mutce plixau .i melbi ciste .i ko skudji lo se du&#39;u na&#39;e=
 ba&#39;e banzu plixau .i ju&#39;o cu&#39;i na&#39;e banzu tu&#39;a do .i k=
u&#39;i li&#39;a plixau je cinri ciste</div><div>07:54 &lt; selpahi&gt; zo&=
#39;o sai .ei lo pa moi rolrafcre cu jdice lo du&#39;u xu kau vimcu</div><d=
iv>07:54 &lt; menli&gt; ku&#39;i la logji zbabu na monsuta .i ma krinu lo n=
u .ei terpa</div><div>07:55 &lt; selpahi&gt; mi na toltugni doi la jduli</d=
iv><div>07:55 &lt; gleki&gt; ti&#39;e lylygy du&#39;eva&#39;e sazri le bang=
u</div><div>07:56 &lt; selpahi&gt; li no ni sazri pe&#39;i</div><div>07:57 =
&lt; mungojelly&gt; selpahi: cafne fa lo nu lo jibni be lo ka jbocretce cu =
cinmo lo simsa be lo se cinmo be do za&#39;a pu</div><div>07:57 &lt; mukti&=
gt; BPFK proposal, as sent to llg-members@, posted here: <a href=3D"http://=
jukni.digitalkingdom.org/~mukti/bpfk.txt">http://jukni.digitalkingdom.org/~=
mukti/bpfk.txt</a></div><div>07:58 &lt; gleki&gt; xu la camgusmis na ba zva=
ti</div><div>07:58 &lt; selpahi&gt; ba&#39;a ja&#39;a go&#39;i</div><div>07=
:59 =C2=A0* banseljaj realizes how horribly rust his lojban is and opens va=
lsi in a private window</div><div>07:59 &lt; banseljaj&gt; rusty*</div><div=
>07:59 &lt; mungojelly&gt; .i la .camgusmis. .i&#39;i cu za&#39;a co&#39;u =
zgana lo ma&#39;a malklu mabla ra&#39;u .i&#39;e .au</div><div>07:59 &lt; m=
ungojelly&gt; banseljaj: should i speak english perhaps?</div><div>08:00 &l=
t; banseljaj&gt; I would appreciate it...</div><div>08:00 &lt; mungojelly&g=
t; i&#39;ll move my ranting to #jbosnu :)</div><div>08:00 &lt; mungojelly&g=
t; banseljaj: how are you today? :)</div><div>08:00 &lt; banseljaj&gt; snu-=
snu</div><div>08:00 &lt; mukti&gt; I&#39;m really enjoying youre presence, =
mungojelly -- how have you kept up your lojban all this time?</div><div>08:=
00 &lt; Fauve&gt; coi lo rodo</div><div>08:00 &lt; banseljaj&gt; I&#39;m go=
iid.</div><div>08:00 &lt; mukti&gt; coi la cilce</div><div>08:00 &lt; banse=
ljaj&gt; good*</div><div>08:00 &lt; banseljaj&gt; How be you?</div><div>08:=
01 &lt; banseljaj&gt; How be everyone else here?</div><div>08:01 &lt; Fauve=
&gt; mukti: you remember my name =3D)</div><div>08:01 &lt;@xalbo&gt; mi se =
xamgu</div><div>08:01 &lt; mungojelly&gt; mukti: uhhhh man geez well. the p=
ast decade i went through a thing so terrible i call it &quot;la mabla&quot=
;. mostly i wasn&#39;t able to succeed at much of anything for that whole t=
ime.</div><div>08:01 &lt;@xalbo&gt; I good.</div><div>08:02 &lt; selpahi&gt=
; fi&#39;i la .guskant.</div><div>08:02 &lt; mukti&gt; mungojelly: &quot;la=
 mabla&quot; is evocative enough!</div><div>08:02 &lt; guskant&gt; ki&#39;e=
 coi la selpa&#39;i</div><div>08:02 &lt; mungojelly&gt; mukti: now i&#39;m =
doing various things now that stuff is better, actually getting to a deep f=
luency in lojban is what i&#39;m working on right now. except not RIGHT thi=
s second, when i&#39;m working on my english, sigh.</div><div>08:02 &lt; mu=
kti&gt; coi ui la .guskant.</div><div>08:02 &lt; guskant&gt; coi la mukti</=
div><div>08:03 &lt; mungojelly&gt; fi&#39;i .guskant.</div><div>08:03 &lt; =
guskant&gt; ui coi la telselkik</div><div>08:03 &lt; menli&gt; ua fi&#39;i<=
/div><div>08:03 &lt; menli&gt; ui</div><div>08:04 &lt; durka42&gt; coi</div=
><div>08:05 &lt; menli&gt; za&#39;a li pa tcika fo lo ponjo gugde</div><div=
>08:05 &lt; mukti&gt; Has anybody been in touch with lojbab to confirm his =
presence today?</div><div>08:05 &lt; durka42&gt; mukti: I sent an email to =
llg-members at 3am, does that count</div><div>08:06 &lt; xorxes&gt; li pa t=
cika fo lo gento ji&#39;a u&#39;</div><div>08:06 &lt; mungojelly&gt; i lear=
ned lojban through a series of periods of intense study, i guess</div><div>=
08:06 &lt; mukti&gt; durka42: I saw that. A good idea to do that ahead of t=
ime.</div><div>08:06 &lt; durka42&gt; menli: za&#39;a la .guskant. ta&#39;e=
nai sipna vau .u&#39;i</div><div>08:06 &lt; banseljaj&gt; mukti: I just saw=
. Good work.</div><div>08:06 &lt; mukti&gt; ki&#39;e la banseljaj</div><div=
>08:06 &lt; guskant&gt; mi no&#39;e sipna</div><div>08:07 &lt; menli&gt; co=
i .i .a&#39;e nai pei</div><div>08:07 &lt; mungojelly&gt; one period of cou=
rse was the &quot;la tcati tcika&quot; period, during that time i was speak=
ing lojban out loud for at least a half hour a day, that&#39;s when i first=
 started to have any fluency speaking</div><div>08:07 &lt; selpahi&gt; mukt=
i: &quot;Membership in LLG or ___ will not be considered a requirement for =
this position.&quot; =C2=A0something missing?</div><div>08:07 &lt; selpahi&=
gt; BPFK?</div><div>08:07 &lt; mukti&gt; Oops.</div><div>08:07 &lt; menli&g=
t; ..oi dai</div><div>08:07 &lt; menli&gt; mi zo&#39;u ca&#39;o tcidu</div>=
<div>08:07 &lt; mukti&gt; Yes, that was my thinking when I composed that pa=
rt, but would be open to thoughts.</div><div>08:08 &lt; selpahi&gt; I like =
that part</div><div>08:08 &lt; mukti&gt; Partly I&#39;m just concerned with=
 the fact that currently &quot;membership&quot; is BPFK is very poorly defi=
ned.</div><div>08:08 &lt; mungojelly&gt; when i started trying to record la=
 tcati tcika, hm well it&#39;s hard to record a solid half hour of audio on=
 any topic in any language so i was learning both at once, but at first i r=
eally couldn&#39;t string sentences together, i was so lost</div><div>08:09=
 &lt; xorxes&gt; loi la lojbab</div><div>08:09 &lt; xorxes&gt; coi</div><di=
v>08:09 &lt; durka42&gt; mukti: so there&#39;s a lot in the proposal about =
selecting a chair. but what about fixing the nebulous membership problem?</=
div><div>08:09 &lt; selpahi&gt; mukti: The role of BPFKJ isn&#39;t specifie=
d, is it?</div><div>08:09 &lt; durka42&gt; coi la lojbab</div><div>08:09 &l=
t; selpahi&gt; fi&#39;i la .lojbab.</div><div>08:10 &lt; mukti&gt; durka42:=
 My thought is that BPFK should be empowered to set such policies. It&#39;s=
 my personal hope that a policy like membership would be clear, but I want =
to avoid the current situation where LLG dictates tons of conditions to BPF=
K.</div><div>08:10 &lt; durka42&gt; gotcha</div><div>08:10 &lt; mukti&gt; s=
elpahi: Do you mean in the current policy?</div><div>08:10 &lt; selpahi&gt;=
 In your proposal</div><div>08:10 &lt; mukti&gt; coi la lojbab</div><div>08=
:10 &lt; lojbab&gt; coi</div><div>08:11 &lt; menli&gt; coi</div><div>08:11 =
&lt; guskant&gt; coi</div><div>08:11 &lt; menli&gt; .i mi&#39;e la .ilmen. =
i .ei pei cmene cenba</div><div>08:12 &lt; Ilmen&gt; ue coi la .noras. fi&#=
39;i sai</div><div>08:12 &lt; mukti&gt; selpahi: Yes, that&#39;s underspeci=
fied. My thinking on that is along the lines of membership -- BPFK could wr=
ite the detailed policy. The main purpose of the BPFKJ role is to act as th=
e recognized liaison with LLG.</div><div>08:12 &lt; xorxes&gt; coi la noras=
</div><div>08:12 &lt; mukti&gt; coi la .noras.</div><div>08:12 &lt; durka42=
&gt; I don&#39;t see how that differs from the current situation</div><div>=
08:12 &lt; durka42&gt; which is fine</div><div>08:12 &lt; durka42&gt; seems=
 to me the main important difference is this proposal gives the BPFK an act=
ual mission to do with dialects</div><div>08:12 &lt; banseljaj&gt; coi fi&#=
39;i la lojbab</div><div>08:13 &lt; durka42&gt; coi la rosta</div><div>08:1=
3 &lt; xorxes&gt; coi la and</div><div>08:13 &lt; mukti&gt; durka42: The te=
rm limit and lack of constraints like consensus minus one, or any of the nu=
merous constraints on the business or order of business are different.</div=
><div>08:13 &lt; gleki&gt; coi la lojbab. .e la noras.</div><div>08:13 &lt;=
 mukti&gt; coi la .and.</div><div>08:13 &lt; durka42&gt; je&#39;e</div><div=
>08:13 &lt; Ilmen&gt; coi la .and.</div><div>08:13 &lt; durka42&gt; you are=
 obviously more familiar with the current rules than I am</div><div>08:14 &=
lt; guskant&gt; coi la noras coi la.and</div><div>08:14 &lt; And2&gt; Am I =
in the right place at the right time?</div><div>08:14 &lt; Ilmen&gt; Yes, y=
ou are.</div><div>08:14 &lt; mukti&gt; You are!</div><div>08:14 &lt; Ilmen&=
gt; Welcome :)</div><div>08:14 &lt; lojbab&gt; OK.=C2=A0 There seems to be =
some discussion about mukti&#39;s proposal, which was posted to the member&=
#39;s list.=C2=A0 Are there any other proposals that are being referred to?=
</div><div>08:15 &lt; Ilmen&gt; That&#39;s the main topic of discussion at =
the moment.</div><div>08:15 &lt; gleki&gt; may be we should somehow discuss=
 the future of CLL?</div><div>08:16 &lt; banseljaj&gt; The future of CLL, T=
he future of the language itself and the mukti proposal</div><div>08:17 &lt=
; lojbab&gt; I have in mind several topics, which include the future of byf=
y and the future of CLL.=C2=A0 But I wanted to see what was already being t=
alked about.</div><div>08:17 &lt; mukti&gt; gleki: I would also like to dis=
cuss CLL, including discussing what connection if any between BPFK and CLL<=
/div><div>08:17 &lt; banseljaj&gt; Someone should moderate.</div><div>08:17=
 &lt; selpahi&gt; Should the mediawiki be discussed at all today?</div><div=
>08:17 &lt; durka42&gt; all hail mediawiki</div><div>08:18 &lt; lojbab&gt; =
I can add it to a list of topics, but I don&#39;t know what it is.</div><di=
v>08:18 &lt; gleki&gt; mukti: how to become a member of BPFK acc. to this p=
roposal?</div><div>08:18 &lt; gleki&gt; Since robin isnt here how can we di=
scuss mediawiki? We can only vote for/against making it official but since =
few members are familiar with it may be I first should present its advantag=
es?</div><div>08:19 &lt; mukti&gt; gleki: It&#39;s my hope that the BPFK wo=
uld establish clear policies on membership. One of the defects {pe&#39;i} o=
f the current policy is that LLG heavily specifies all BPFK activity, inclu=
ding membership.</div><div>08:19 &lt; lojbab&gt; Is Robin present?=C2=A0 He=
 is of course the one who knows what he is doing right now with CLL and Lig=
htning Source.</div><div>08:20 &lt; gleki&gt; mukti: should i drop the prop=
osal regarding mediawiki to the mailing list? does it even matter now?</div=
><div>08:20 &lt; banseljaj&gt; lojbab: rlpowell has been tagged but I don&#=
39;t see any recent activity from him. He is probably asleep.</div><div>08:=
20 &lt; lojbab&gt; I had not yet called the vote on the proposal to fund hi=
s efforts, so I want to get any discussion of CLL republication out of the =
way first,</div><div>08:21 &lt; mukti&gt; gleki: I think the proposal matte=
rs, since it is good to get the will of the community.</div><div>08:21 &lt;=
 mungojelly&gt; I know none of you can actually be bothered to fully proces=
s my opinions about this because they&#39;re strange, but I feel I should p=
oint out to you again that in deciding membership you are also deciding the=
 entirety of who&#39;s subject to your decisions. You can or should only au=
tonomously decide about your own actions. OK well good feel free to ignore =
that then yay.</div><div>08:21 &lt; banseljaj&gt; I vote to fund robin&#39;=
s efforts.</div><div>08:21 &lt; durka42&gt; thanks for your input mungojell=
y</div><div>08:21 &lt; gleki&gt; I vote to fund robin&#39;s efforts too.</d=
iv><div>08:22 =C2=A0* gleki Although i already voted in the mriste</div><di=
v>08:22 &lt; durka42&gt; me too, though I thought we weren&#39;t voting tod=
ay</div><div>08:22 &lt; noras&gt; Can&#39;t do voting here since not member=
-only.=C2=A0 Besides, it was already voted and seconded.</div><div>08:22 &l=
t; banseljaj&gt; If it&#39;s not much trouble, we can move to a member-only=
 room.</div><div>08:23 &lt; selpahi&gt; I prefer open discussions</div><div=
>08:24 &lt; gleki&gt; Btw I offered today&#39;s meeting to be logged (even =
the part not spoken in Lojban) and to be copied to llg-members list. Probab=
ly I&#39;ll have to delete messages from non-members</div><div>08:24 &lt; d=
urka42&gt; seems like a good idea</div><div>08:24 &lt; Ilmen&gt; If I&#39;m=
 not mistaken, this IRC session is intended to reach mutual agreement, not =
for formally voting :)</div><div>08:24 &lt; lojbab&gt; Specifically, since =
Robin says that his republication will likely cost much less than the propo=
sed $2000, do we want to consider any promotion.=C2=A0 Also if publication =
through LS is not an exclusive agreement, do we want to simultaneoisly find=
 Print on Demand publishers in Europe and possibly Oz, which would substant=
ially cheapen the costs to non-US buyers (the current CLL weighs around 2.6=
 lbs 1.2kg, and the postage costs to Europe are=C2=A0</div><div>08:25 &lt; =
durka42&gt; (cut off after &quot;Europe are&quot;)</div><div>08:25 &lt; dur=
ka42&gt; Oz? does that mean Australia?</div><div>08:25 &lt; lojbab&gt; Ther=
e is no voting, in part because even figuring out who is present for quorum=
 is =C2=A0hard.</div><div>08:26 &lt; mukti&gt; FWIW, I count 11 members</di=
v><div>08:26 &lt; lojbab&gt; remainder of my last:: =C2=A0postage costs to =
Europe are as much as the costs of the book</div><div>08:26 &lt; lojbab&gt;=
 Oz =3D australia</div><div>08:26 &lt; gleki&gt; Strange. Dont they have pr=
inting facilities in other countries?</div><div>08:27 &lt; lojbab&gt; to be=
 distinguished from az the member&#39;</div><div>08:27 &lt; durka42&gt; :)<=
/div><div>08:27 &lt; mukti&gt; Perhaps it would be worth considering a subs=
idy to reduce the price of foreign shipments until overseas printing is est=
ablished.</div><div>08:27 &lt; And2&gt; Does LS print in US and then expens=
ively ship overseas?</div><div>08:27 &lt; gleki&gt; mukti: oh, i missed you=
r message. Okay, dropping the post about mediawiki into the llg-members mai=
ling list now. It&#39;ll be rather tech-centric.</div><div>08:28 &lt; lojba=
b&gt; I don&#39;t know where they have printing.=C2=A0 We don&#39;t even ge=
t info on who is buying the books.</div><div>08:28 &lt; gleki&gt; We should=
 probably find another service.</div><div>08:28 &lt; guskant&gt; lojbab: I =
have seen several people who wanted to buy the book</div><div>08:29 &lt; gl=
eki&gt; banseljaj: we wont discuss your proposal today?</div><div>08:29 &lt=
; lojbab&gt; I don&#39;t know enough about how LS works to know if there is=
 a mechanism to subsidize overseas shipping.</div><div>08:29 &lt; guskant&g=
t; lojban: in Japan</div><div>08:29 &lt; gleki&gt; banseljaj: the position =
of project manager</div><div>08:29 &lt; banseljaj&gt; I was wiating for an =
opportunity to bring it up</div><div>08:29 &lt; banseljaj&gt; as part of th=
e BPFK discussion</div><div>08:29 &lt; banseljaj&gt; :D</div><div>08:29 &lt=
; durka42&gt; the lightning source website mentions &quot;global distributi=
on channels&quot;</div><div>08:30 &lt; durka42&gt; I&#39;m not clear on whe=
re they ship from</div><div>08:30 &lt; gleki&gt; This is how they should wo=
rk. They should ship from the nearest department where the books are printe=
d</div><div>08:30 &lt; banseljaj&gt; The moon? Someone should go and ask th=
em about it.</div><div>08:31 &lt; lojbab&gt; Project mamanger proposal is o=
n the list for possible discussion, but is further down, because it is new =
business, and doesn&#39;t get called for consoideration until after the old=
 business which is CLL and byfy.=C2=A0 Any future logfests, per Pierre&#39;=
s postings, would also be new business</div><div>08:31 &lt; gleki&gt; Btw, =
another proposal (a rivl to project manager position) is spending money on =
IT-projects instead. Like glossers (machine translation), writing ditionari=
es etc.</div><div>08:32 &lt; gleki&gt; writing =C2=A0dictionaries isn&#39;t=
 IT-related, sorry.</div><div>08:33 &lt; lojbab&gt; Such a proposal, gleki,=
 would be new business.=C2=A0 Dictionaries could be IT-related if we decide=
d to make dictionary production an automated thing.</div><div>08:34 &lt; lo=
jbab&gt; For consideration of all finance questions, bear in mind that mukt=
i just reported that we have around $16K US.=C2=A0 We normally get less tha=
n $2K a year income, I think (mukti may be able to verify) and this may dec=
rease wioth the book coming out via LS.</div><div>08:34 &lt; guskant&gt; bi=
lingual periodical is also a kind of new business proposal</div><div>08:35 =
&lt; mungojelly&gt; New business can&#39;t be considered before old busines=
s, nothing can be voted on even though everyone&#39;s present, this is obvi=
ously obstructionist!? What *is* the agenda.</div><div>08:35 &lt; banseljaj=
&gt; mungojelly: it was my understanding that we are here so we can have a =
faster paced discussion and then vote and stuff in the mriste</div><div>08:=
36 &lt; gleki&gt; Sure, I was trying to recall everything that could be dis=
cussed.</div><div>08:36 &lt; gleki&gt; *I was just trying</div><div>08:36 &=
lt; mukti&gt; mungojelly: the order of business was advertised at the begin=
ning of the meeting, and is consistent with how meetings have been run in t=
he past</div><div>08:36 &lt; lojbab&gt; I am not trying to be obstructionis=
t, but nothing gets voted on in these sessions.=C2=A0 Just real-time discus=
sion.=C2=A0 We don&#39;t have to exclude new business, but it sounds like t=
here are many topics, so I suggest we tryy old business only at first.</div=
><div>08:36 &lt; lojbab&gt; We likely will need another session, if this on=
e goes well.</div><div>08:38 &lt; lojbab&gt; to coverall of the topics that=
 have been raised.=C2=A0 I think I said that I want to limit things to 2 ho=
urs, possibly extending to 3 hours.</div><div>08:39 &lt; mukti&gt; Net inco=
me for last three years: $783.70 (2012), $895.94 (2013), $1919.72 (2014)</d=
iv><div>08:39 &lt; b_jonas&gt; coi la lojbab</div><div>08:39 &lt; lojbab&gt=
; So first of all, without Robin here, I would likemembers, presumably in E=
urope (and possibkly az in oz and guskant in Japan) to see if there are any=
 publish-on-demand publishers that could do a CLL publication.</div><div>08=
:40 &lt; mukti&gt; Is .az. in Oz?</div><div>08:40 &lt; lojbab&gt; I think s=
o,</div><div>08:41 &lt; b_jonas&gt; ue how did you get mungojelly back? he =
said he left because he wants only lojbau conversation</div><div>08:42 &lt;=
 durka42&gt; mukti: Robin said that selling the CLL through LS will net sig=
nificantly lower profits, so presumably that income will go down once Amazo=
n runs out of CLLs?</div><div>08:42 &lt; Ilmen&gt; Nick Nicholas/Robin Turn=
er&#39;s textbook is &quot;Lojban for Beginners&quot;, is that correct?</di=
v><div>08:42 &lt; selpahi&gt; Yes</div><div>08:42 &lt; Ilmen&gt; Seems so</=
div><div>08:43 &lt; b_jonas&gt; I mean left for #jbosnu</div><div>08:43 &lt=
; lojbab&gt; Ilmen: yes.=C2=A0 We can discuss publishing that as new busine=
ss, but it probably needs at least a little revision.</div><div>08:44 &lt; =
durka42&gt; it needs xorlo revision, at least</div><div>08:44 &lt; mukti&gt=
; durka42: If Robin says it is less profitable, it must be so. I&#39;m of t=
he opinion that at the present, profitability is less of a concern than kee=
ping the book in print, so I would favor taking whatever path keeps us in p=
rint in the short term, and optimizing profitability later.</div><div>08:44=
 &lt; mungojelly&gt; b_jonas: i felt like it&#39;d be snubbing this meeting=
 to have this be the one day in a long time i hadn&#39;t been here. :D but =
it&#39;s true, i&#39;ll be found more in #jbosnu from now on. i need exposu=
re to lojban mostly to improve my fluency, i&#39;m practicing thinking in l=
ojban.</div><div>08:44 &lt; durka42&gt; mukti: yeah that makes sense</div><=
div>08:45 &lt; lojbab&gt; The question of profitbility is not necessarily i=
mportant, but we have to think about our total dollars to spend on all proj=
ects, bearing in mind that income is very small.</div><div>08:46 &lt; gleki=
&gt; What did Robin suggest as an alternative? Amazon&#39;s CreateSpace?</d=
iv><div>08:46 &lt; lojbab&gt; I don&#39;t know that any alternatives were s=
uggested,</div><div>08:46 &lt; mukti&gt; lojbab: Agreed. It&#39;s important=
 not to assume the current surplus as an ongoing constant.</div><div>08:47 =
&lt; gleki&gt; ti&#39;e CreateSpace can be shipped from Europe.</div><div>0=
8:47 &lt; lojbab&gt; We have a current arrangement with LS, and thus Robin =
knows how to publish through them, in hardcover (since people want CLL to b=
e hardcover).=C2=A0 Back when we first looked at LS,maybe a dozen years ago=
, some others were considered.</div><div>08:48 &lt; lojbab&gt; But I doubt =
if whatever was found out would be all that relevant.</div><div>08:50 &lt; =
banseljaj&gt; lojbab: We have to consider the ebook publication as well. Si=
nce we might have that as a revenue stream</div><div>08:51 &lt; lojbab&gt; =
Which ebook is that?=C2=A0 Or are you saying that CLL shoould be published =
as an ebook as well (maybe Robin is already planning this, but I have seen =
no mention thereof)</div><div>08:52 &lt; mukti&gt; I&#39;d very much like t=
o see CLL available as an ebook, and I think that will improve sails.</div>=
<div>08:52 &lt; mukti&gt; s/sails/sales/</div><div>08:53 &lt; banseljaj&gt;=
 lojbab: rlpowell =C2=A0s planning CLL as an ebook as well.</div><div>08:53=
 &lt; guskant&gt; I agree to the idea of ebook.</div><div>08:53 &lt; mukti&=
gt; That said, I see that as an enhancement, and maintain that the most imp=
ortant thing to do right now is to ensure that it stays in print.</div><div=
>08:53 &lt; guskant&gt; I have already published a book in lojban on Google=
 Play.</div><div>08:53 &lt; mungojelly&gt; If you&#39;re discussing not hav=
ing a free copy online then I&#39;d have to stop referring people to that a=
s a text they should read? I&#39;m not going to tell people they have to bu=
y something? Just saying..</div><div>08:53 &lt; lojbab&gt; OK.=C2=A0 Is tha=
t done through Lightning Source, or via the Lojban web page.</div><div>08:5=
3 &lt; guskant&gt; <a href=3D"https://play.google.com/store/books/details/a=
kutagaun_riunosuk_guskant_lo_nenri_be_lo_spati_de?id=3DhDZ8nls0TNQC">https:=
//play.google.com/store/books/details/akutagaun_riunosuk_guskant_lo_nenri_b=
e_lo_spati_de?id=3DhDZ8nls0TNQC</a></div><div>08:53 &lt; mukti&gt; guskant:=
 ue</div><div>08:54 &lt; guskant&gt; It cost zero.</div><div>08:54 &lt; mun=
gojelly&gt; mukti: guskant&#39;s version of &quot;lo nenri be lo spati denm=
i&quot; is really gorgeous. beautiful cover photo and everything. i&#39;d l=
ike a printed copy of that, guskant!</div><div>08:54 &lt; lojbab&gt; my las=
t was directed at mukti</div><div>08:54 &lt; durka42&gt; we are going to ha=
ve a PDF to send to lightning source</div><div>08:54 &lt; durka42&gt; I had=
 assumed that would be available online</div><div>08:55 &lt; durka42&gt; ju=
st like the current CLL is available online</div><div>08:55 &lt; noras&gt; =
I also would like an on-line copy available</div><div>08:55 &lt; durka42&gt=
; (free of charge, I mean)</div><div>08:55 &lt; Ilmen&gt; ua jbobau mutcku<=
/div><div>08:55 &lt; banseljaj&gt; mungojelly: I don&#39;t think we&#39;ll =
be taking the online version down</div><div>08:55 &lt; mukti&gt; lojbab: Do=
 you mean is the ebook to be done through Lightning Source? I&#39;m not fam=
iliar with the details of Robin&#39;s plans. For my part, I hope that some =
day CLL is available through the Amazon Kindle.</div><div>08:55 &lt; bansel=
jaj&gt; But ebooks, hardbacks and an online (free) reference, all should be=
 available</div><div>08:56 &lt; lojbab&gt; oh sorry, that was banseljaj who=
 said that Robin was planning an ebook.</div><div>08:56 &lt; noras&gt; I be=
lieve, though, that the online version has to be considered because it woul=
d need to be updated</div><div>08:56 &lt; lojbab&gt; The question then beco=
mes: is this ebook something apart from the current online version.</div><d=
iv>08:56 &lt; banseljaj&gt; lojbab: I do not know where we&#39;ll be sendin=
g the webook. I assume Google Play books and amazon kindle</div><div>08:56 =
&lt; mukti&gt; I also think there&#39;s no reason that it can&#39;t be avai=
lable in some form free through the web site. There are plenty of examples =
of technical books that are available both as open source content and as pa=
id downloads. People will pay both for the convenience and in order to supp=
ort the organization.</div><div>08:59 &lt; lojbab&gt; I agree with you, muk=
ti.=C2=A0 I don&#39;t think the availability of the online CLL has seriousl=
y affected sales of the hardcover, which of course has only been a thousand=
 copies over some 18 years.</div><div>08:59 &lt; banseljaj&gt; Yeah. I thin=
k mukti has got it. Like Learn You A Haskell</div><div>08:59 &lt; guskant&g=
t; banseljaj: Amazon kindle publishing did not accept a book _in_ Lojban bu=
t they should accept a book _in_ English about Lojban.</div><div>08:59 &lt;=
@xalbo&gt; I can easily see both being available, too. A web version freely=
 accessible, an epub/kindle/whatever &quot;ebook&quot; version available fo=
r offline reading for a nominal fee.</div><div>09:00 &lt; banseljaj&gt; gus=
kant: I&#39;ve seen plenty of absolutely crap books on amazon kindle. CLL w=
ould be a breeze.</div><div>09:00 &lt; noras&gt; pe&#39;i: Yes - hardback (=
it&#39;s beautiful), Yes - online (it&#39;s handy when on Web stuff), Yes -=
 ebook (for on the train). It&#39;s just how much can we afford to do the p=
ublishing.</div><div>09:00 &lt; mukti&gt; guskant: I have submitted a compl=
aint to Amazon about the limits of the language codes. If we could properly=
 mark lojbanic texts as JBO, then it would be possible for people to also d=
ownload a lojban dictionary marked JBO and to look up words as they read.</=
div><div>09:01 &lt; guskant&gt; banseljaj: sure.</div><div>09:01 &lt; guska=
nt&gt; mukti: .ue ki&#39;esai</div><div>09:01 &lt; durka42&gt; I was wonder=
ing why it was marked Italian</div><div>09:01 &lt; mukti&gt; (It&#39;s poss=
ible to make it work now by abusing other codes -- there are a number of es=
peranto books that do this.)</div><div>09:03 &lt; mukti&gt; I just download=
ed {lo nenri be lo spati denmi}. I look forward to reading it!</div><div>09=
:03 &lt; guskant&gt; mukti: .ui ki&#39;e</div><div>09:05 &lt; mukti&gt; .oi=
 have we run out of Ands?</div><div>09:05 &lt;@xalbo&gt; I have mixed feeli=
ngs about selling CLL1.1. I&#39;d like someone to assuage me. I feel like, =
to those who aren&#39;t intimately connected with the progress of the langu=
age, there might be those who feel like they&#39;re supposed to buy CLL1.0,=
 then CLL1.1, then CLL2.0 when it comes out, and they see us as money grubb=
ing or something.</div><div>09:06 &lt;@xalbo&gt; &quot;Why&#39;d you sell m=
e this, when you knew it was going to be obsolete so soon?&quot;</div><div>=
09:06 &lt; durka42&gt; mukti: we have reached Peak And</div><div>09:06 &lt;=
 noras&gt; doi xalbo: Just be sure they know where the free ones are and th=
at the changes are not that global.=C2=A0 Maybe a site describing the chang=
es?</div><div>09:07 &lt; gleki&gt; this &quot;so soon&quot; might take year=
s.</div><div>09:07 &lt; durka42&gt; I, too, think it&#39;s weird to make CL=
L1.1 a big production when CLL2.0 is on the way, but we don&#39;t know how =
long it&#39;s going to be until CLL2.0</div><div>09:07 &lt; durka42&gt; peo=
ple still want copies of the CLL, and soon the stocks of CLL1.0 will run ou=
t</div><div>09:07 &lt; mukti&gt; xalbo: I think if we explicitly offer a fr=
ee version, that would help. lojbab pointed out that it doesn&#39;t seem to=
 harm sales. Also, for those who have purchased e-versions, it&#39;s possib=
le to offer free &quot;upgrades&quot;. I have received such upgrades for ki=
ndle books.</div><div>09:07 &lt; durka42&gt; so that&#39;s why we have to p=
rint CLL1.1, as I understand it</div><div>09:07 &lt; lojbab&gt; So can we g=
et some people to commit to researching and reporting to the (formal) meeti=
ng.=C2=A0 Perhaps mukti on amazon, guskant on Google Play, and gleki on Eur=
opean possibilities.=C2=A0 Get several proposals and then discuss picking i=
n the formal meeting.</div><div>09:07 &lt; gleki&gt; Anyway indeed I propos=
e remove doubtful parts of CLL like lerfu shift cmavo and YACC and publish =
them later in the second volume.</div><div>09:08 &lt; noras&gt; um - I USE =
lerfu chift cmavo and YACC!</div><div>09:08 &lt; mukti&gt; I would be happy=
 to research Amazon, but in doing so, want to make sure I&#39;m not adding =
to the obstacles to keep CLL currently in print.</div><div>09:08 &lt; gleki=
&gt; the same for the dictionary. It can be published as one of the volumes=
 of CLL.</div><div>09:09 &lt; gleki&gt; noras: I&#39;m not saying they aren=
t necessary. They arent fully specified. We need to describe them better an=
d then publish.</div><div>09:09 &lt; fonynenmaj&gt; do&#39;oi mungojelly My=
 idea is essentially to write a set of rules definine what morphology rafsi=
 are allowed to have, as a function of what sounds are in it&#39;s selrafsi=
</div><div>09:09 &lt; lojbab&gt; Let&#39;s just get CLL 1.1 out for now, pr=
esumably using Robin&#39;s proof that he is producing for LS.=C2=A0 I think=
 that is the one on github.</div><div>09:09 &lt; durka42&gt; ie</div><div>0=
9:10 &lt; mukti&gt; <a href=3D"http://vrici.lojban.org/~rlpowell/media/publ=
ic/cll_prince_for_lsi.pdf">http://vrici.lojban.org/~rlpowell/media/public/c=
ll_prince_for_lsi.pdf</a></div><div>09:10 &lt; gleki&gt; Now there are many=
 more formatting issues there. It&#39;s a long way until we can come to dis=
cussing xorlo and other things.</div><div>09:11 &lt; mukti&gt; (I think tha=
t&#39;s the most recent build -- per Robin&#39;s January 5 post to mriste)<=
/div><div>09:11 &lt; lojbab&gt; Once we know how hard it is to get all thre=
e - hardcopy, ebook and webbook, we can know what to do for other books.</d=
iv><div>09:11 &lt; noras&gt; gleki: YACC is not fully specified?</div><div>=
09:12 &lt; gleki&gt; noras: no, I mean =C2=A0lerfu shift cmavo.</div><div>0=
9:13 &lt; mungojelly&gt; noras: lojbab: pardon me for asking, but how much =
lojban do you speak? mi mutce lo ka kucli lo ni do jbocre va&#39;i</div><di=
v>09:14 &lt; mukti&gt; I think the question about YACC is not about its spe=
cification, but whether it should be included in the next print edition, pe=
r Robin&#39;s email to the mriste in October.</div><div>09:14 &lt; noras&gt=
; pu jbocre .i ku&#39;i ca ku na&#39;e certu</div><div>09:14 &lt; Ilmen&gt;=
 za&#39;a ca&#39;o certu banzu :)</div><div>09:14 &lt; mukti&gt; ie</div><d=
iv>09:14 &lt; xorxes&gt; YACC requires a pre-parser for the morphology and =
even part of the syntax</div><div>09:15 &lt; gleki&gt; mukti: I was talking=
 about specification of YACC. Earlier it was proposed in the main lojban mr=
iste that YACC could be published as a separate volume. Now I&#39;m proposi=
ng to cinlude less specified parts of CLL into later volumes so that we hav=
e time to update them adding new examples.</div><div>09:15 &lt; gleki&gt; d=
arn, sorry.</div><div>09:15 &lt; durka42&gt; yacc: za&#39;a ca&#39;o certu =
banzu</div><div>09:15 &lt; mensi&gt; (za&#39;a {&lt;ca&#39;o [certu banzu]&=
gt; VAU})</div><div>09:15 &lt; gleki&gt; mukti: I was NOT talking about spe=
cification of YACC. Earlier it was proposed in the main lojban mriste that =
YACC could be published as a separate volume. Now I&#39;m proposing to cinl=
ude less specified parts of CLL into later volumes so that we have time to =
update them adding new examples.</div><div>09:15 &lt;@xalbo&gt; xorxes: Doe=
sn&#39;t even PEG require a pre-parser for ZOI handling?</div><div>09:15 &l=
t; Ilmen&gt; Wow, Robin&#39;s CLL is 704 pages long</div><div>09:15 &lt; mu=
ngojelly&gt; noras: .i .au fonxa mu&#39;a jikca do&#39;o (I&#39;d like to t=
alk to y&#39;all on the phone for instance.) .i mi certu binxo sidju .ai sa=
i (I&#39;d very much like to help you become fluent.)</div><div>09:16 &lt; =
durka42&gt; is that longer than the printed edition?</div><div>09:16 &lt; m=
ukti&gt; xalbo: pei it&#39;s not a preparser, but the zoi-handling is an ex=
tension to PEG</div><div>09:16 &lt;@xalbo&gt; je&#39;e</div><div>09:16 &lt;=
 durka42&gt; that&#39;s 100 pages longer than the print edition on my desk<=
/div><div>09:16 &lt;@xalbo&gt; How much of that is the formal grammars?</di=
v><div>09:16 &lt; xorxes&gt; noras: ZOI is not handled by PEG, that&#39;s c=
orrect</div><div>09:17 &lt; durka42&gt; xalbo said that</div><div>09:17 &lt=
; durka42&gt; xalbo: how much of the current CLL, you mean?</div><div>09:17=
 &lt; gleki&gt; 574 pages. After that formal grammars start.</div><div>09:1=
7 &lt; Ilmen&gt; In Camxes-js (the javascript implementation of the PEG gra=
mmar), ZOI is handled with injected Javascript code.</div><div>09:17 &lt;@x=
albo&gt; I&#39;d support excluding them (or making them into a separate vol=
ume.) It seems like that&#39;s not the sort of thing that references well f=
rom paper.</div><div>09:17 &lt; Ilmen&gt; @ xorxes</div><div>09:18 &lt;@xal=
bo&gt; durka42: Yes, that&#39;s what I meant.</div><div>09:18 &lt;@xalbo&gt=
; Or rather, how many of the 704 pages of Robin&#39;s pdf.</div><div>09:18 =
&lt; durka42&gt; yeah, in print the grammar are page 511-563</div><div>09:1=
8 &lt; mukti&gt; Excluding the formal grammar may also reduce barriers to g=
etting back in print, since that section will require special formatting wo=
rk and make the book more expensive.</div><div>09:18 &lt; durka42&gt; after=
 that index</div><div>09:18 &lt; lojbab&gt; The YACC grammar including the =
complete index, is around 40 pages</div><div>09:18 &lt; gleki&gt; Robin ear=
lier asked whether he could exclude formal grammars. Given that they might =
require additional manual work in formatting them I suggest that they are p=
rinted later.</div><div>09:18 &lt; mukti&gt; (what gleki said)</div><div>09=
:19 &lt; lojbab&gt; The EBNf is another 10 pages with index</div><div>09:19=
 &lt; gleki&gt; Also the current snapshot of CLL has examples not well form=
atted. May be after he fixes them the resulting size shrinks may be even by=
 100 pages.</div><div>09:19 &lt; mukti&gt; I&#39;d favor including EBNF but=
 not YACC.</div><div>09:20 &lt;@xalbo&gt; Someone remind me why we have bot=
h the YACC and the EBNF?</div><div>09:20 &lt; durka42&gt; gleki: ie, it&#39=
;s just a proof currently, though I highly doubt the length will change by =
100 pages</div><div>09:20 &lt; noras&gt; I think YACC is the official, but =
EBNF was more familiar to many and easier to understand recursion.</div><di=
v>09:21 &lt; lojbab&gt; Wheras the YACC remains the official form while the=
 EBNF is secondary.=C2=A0 I personally only use the YACC version, since the=
 EBNF is too dense for me.=C2=A0 I really do think one YACC construct at a =
time.</div><div>09:21 &lt; mukti&gt; I also find EBNF more readable in the =
print format. YACC, to me, is code -- something I am very used to reading, =
but *not* in print.</div><div>09:22 &lt; noras&gt; YACC is official because=
 the grammar was verfied using actual YACC</div><div>09:23 &lt;@xalbo&gt; j=
e&#39;e</div><div>09:23 &lt; mukti&gt; I appreciate that since YACC is exec=
utable, it provides a value that EBNF does not. I just don&#39;t think prin=
t is a good medium to deliver that value, since print is not executable.</d=
iv><div>09:24 &lt; guskant&gt; mukti: iesai</div><div>09:25 &lt;@xalbo&gt; =
.ie</div><div>09:25 &lt; gleki&gt; ie</div><div>09:25 &lt; lojbab&gt; But s=
ince we are talking about ebooks and web paes as well, we aren&#39;treally =
specifying print only</div><div>09:25 &lt; banseljaj&gt; YACC could effecti=
vely be a DLC of sorts.</div><div>09:25 &lt; durka42&gt; heh</div><div>09:2=
5 &lt; noras&gt; DLC ki&#39;a</div><div>09:25 &lt; gleki&gt; Ebooks are not=
 different from paperbooks in reading the code. You still can&#39;t execute=
 it.</div><div>09:25 &lt; durka42&gt; noras: &quot;downloadable content&quo=
t; that doesn&#39;t come with the initial purchase; video-game term</div><d=
iv>09:26 &lt;@xalbo&gt; Downloadable content (often for an extra fee, but s=
ometimes free, content that can be added to a video game after purchase)</d=
iv><div>09:26 &lt; durka42&gt; does it even matter? are the grammars in Rob=
in&#39;s proof? if they are, then do we need to discuss it</div><div>09:26 =
&lt; mukti&gt; lojbab: I have fewer objections to including YACC in an elec=
tronic edition, since it would not then incur the additional weight and cos=
t.</div><div>09:27 &lt;@xalbo&gt; ie</div><div>09:27 &lt; lojbab&gt; durka:=
 true</div><div>09:27 &lt;@xalbo&gt; I&#39;m fine with throwing in hte kitc=
hen sink in any electronic form. But for printed matter, extra pages are ex=
tra cost.</div><div>09:27 &lt; lojbab&gt; I don&#39;t feel all that strongl=
y myself.=C2=A0 Whatever Robin produces will be CLL 1.1</div><div>09:27 &lt=
; durka42&gt; and trees</div><div>09:28 &lt; durka42&gt; won&#39;t someone =
think of the trees</div><div>09:28 &lt; mukti&gt; My primary concern is to =
knock down the obstacles to getting back into print. To my sensibility, if =
dropping YACC from the print edition helps us to get their, it&#39;s a near=
ly painless concession.</div><div>09:28 &lt; mukti&gt; s/their/there/</div>=
<div>09:28 &lt; gleki&gt; I dont see any problems. Then later we can publis=
h all parts of CLL in one volume including the dictionary. But since curren=
tly we can&#39;t do that we should publish only the most essential part nee=
ded for everyone. Customers will be able to choose in future what to buy: t=
he complete set or individual volumes.</div><div>09:28 &lt; noras&gt; I jus=
t consider it a &quot;selling point&quot; for lojban to visibly show that i=
t is grammatically unambiguous.=C2=A0 Maybe the page count is too much, but=
 it would at least be useful =C2=A0to mention *in the book* that the YACC/E=
BNF is available</div><div>09:28 &lt; durka42&gt; I see the the proof conta=
ins the EBNF but not the YACC grammar</div><div>09:28 &lt; durka42&gt; by t=
he way</div><div>09:29 &lt; mukti&gt; noras: I agree that it&#39;s essentia=
l to emphasize that the grammars are available.</div><div>09:30 &lt; mukti&=
gt; lojban&#39;s parseability is an important feature that deserves continu=
ed exposition</div><div>09:30 &lt; durka42&gt; which makes it weirder that =
the proof is 100 pages longer. I guess it&#39;s just page size/margins/etc<=
/div><div>09:30 &lt; durka42&gt; we can even mention that there is a PEG!</=
div><div>09:31 &lt; mukti&gt; That&#39;s worth discussing too when we move =
on to BPFK / Baseline issues. The status of the PEG is not clear.</div><div=
>09:31 &lt; maik_&gt; some improvements the typesetting in the appendices i=
n Robin&#39;s version would reduce the page count significantly. =C2=A0he i=
s using a ton of whitespace in places</div><div>09:31 &lt; mukti&gt; maik_:=
 I get the impression that Robin would be over the moon if people sent him =
some pull requests to improve formatting.</div><div>09:31 &lt; lojbab&gt; S=
ome have wanted to replace the YACC grammar with the PEG grammar as being t=
he standard.=C2=A0 But Nora and I have had problems understanding the PEG, =
whjereas we can buildiung Lojban constructs using ythe YACC grammmar (i.e. =
the random sentence generator)</div><div>09:31 &lt; maik_&gt; i am willing =
to try to help on this</div><div>09:32 &lt; b_jonas&gt; je&#39;e la&#39;o d=
a mungojelly da</div><div>09:32 &lt; durka42&gt; I think speech is more imp=
ortant than a random sentence generator, but I take your point about famili=
arity</div><div>09:32 &lt; gleki&gt; I dont understand YACC. I&#39;m famili=
ar only with PEG.</div><div>09:32 &lt; durka42&gt; yeah, it&#39;s more abou=
t what one was &quot;raised on&quot;</div><div>09:32 &lt; Ilmen&gt; mi&#39;=
u</div><div>09:33 &lt; mukti&gt; This is something of a theme for me, but I=
 don&#39;t see why we need to see the PEG as a &quot;replacement&quot; for =
YACC. It is, however, the formal grammar that seems to receive the most act=
ive attention these days.</div><div>09:33 &lt; mukti&gt; And by &quot;these=
 days&quot; I mean for the last decade.</div><div>09:33 &lt; durka42&gt; ri=
ght</div><div>09:33 &lt; Ilmen&gt; Does CLL&#39;s YACC manage morphology?</=
div><div>09:34 &lt; xorxes&gt; no</div><div>09:34 &lt; noras&gt; But if the=
y disagree, which is deemed correct?</div><div>09:34 &lt; lojbab&gt; Defini=
tely people getting to work on improving the proof is a good thing, =C2=A0I=
 think we are losing Robin because too few have stepped uyp to help out on =
a continuing basis.</div><div>09:34 &lt; Ilmen&gt; yacc: brydy</div><div>09=
:34 &lt; mensi&gt; (brydy VAU)</div><div>09:34 &lt; Ilmen&gt; camxes: brydy=
</div><div>09:34 &lt; camxes&gt; SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but &qu=
ot;b&quot; found.</div><div>09:35 &lt; mukti&gt; noras: I think that questi=
on goes to the heart of things. Is it necessary for there to be a single de=
finition of correctness?</div><div>09:36 &lt; noras&gt; Isn&#39;t correctne=
ss the heart of BYFY?</div><div>09:36 &lt;@Broca&gt; ue la lojbab ba&#39;e =
e la noras</div><div>09:36 &lt; durka42&gt; the byfy uses camxes</div><div>=
09:36 &lt; mukti&gt; In practical terms, it seems to me that people have be=
en long accustomed to navigating disparate standards -- not only when it co=
mes to the parsers, but they are an especially clear case.</div><div>09:36 =
&lt; Ilmen&gt; coi la&#39;oi Broca</div><div>09:36 &lt; mukti&gt; coi la Br=
oca</div><div>09:36 &lt; durka42&gt; coi .arnt.</div><div>09:37 &lt; mungoj=
elly&gt; In practice the grammar does change regularly. Just throwing a lit=
tle random tidbit from the living language Lojban into the discussion, if t=
hat&#39;s relevant at all. :/</div><div>09:37 &lt; lojbab&gt; broca: for a =
meeting, I am reasonably sure that someone will be here %^)</div><div>09:38=
 &lt; Ilmen&gt; In the case where a discrepancy between the parsers&#39; ou=
tput is found, that&#39;s the job of BPFK to tell which parse is correct, i=
f any :)</div><div>09:38 &lt; durka42&gt; or to argue about it, anyway %^)<=
/div><div>09:39 &lt; Ilmen&gt; Then, the incorrect grammar will have to be =
adjusted accordingly</div><div>09:39 &lt; lojbab&gt; Probably, as the BPFK =
evolves from prescriber to describer, the difference between parsers will b=
e less important =C2=A0Right now, the mode is prescriptive.</div><div>09:39=
 &lt; durka42&gt; sounds like a good segue to talk about the future of byfy=
</div><div>09:40 &lt; lojbab&gt; And any tidbits per mungojelly are not (ye=
t) part of the prescription.</div><div>09:40 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: OK=
 that&#39;s fine, I&#39;m just pointing out, in case it&#39;s relevant to y=
our conversation, that the actual grammar of the spoken language has change=
d and will continue to.</div><div>09:40 &lt; mukti&gt; durka42: ie</div><di=
v>09:41 &lt; lojbab&gt; durka: I agree. But I really would have liked =C2=
=A0some explicit commitments before we drop the CLL discussion, if anyone i=
s willing to make such.</div><div>09:41 &lt; durka42&gt; okay, I don&#39;t =
mean to prematurely change the subject</div><div>09:41 &lt; mungojelly&gt; =
A common topic of conversation among people who actually speak Lojban regul=
arly is &quot;ugh, but your suggestion would need a new selma&#39;o.&quot; =
The suggestion is not &quot;which would require asking the BPFK to formally=
 change the grammar.&quot; We informally change the grammar, constantly, wi=
thout permission. Make of that what you wish.</div><div>09:42 &lt; durka42&=
gt; you asked for people to commit to researching publication options</div>=
<div>09:42 &lt; durka42&gt; did we get that?</div><div>09:42 &lt; guskant&g=
t; ta&#39;a rodo mide&#39;ajundi ice&#39;obazisipna co&#39;o (to tcika fa l=
i 2:42 .a&#39;enaitoi)</div><div>09:42 &lt; gleki&gt; co&#39;o</div><div>09=
:42 &lt; Ilmen&gt; co&#39;o di&#39;ai la ;guskant.</div><div>09:42 &lt; dur=
ka42&gt; co&#39;o gy</div><div>09:42 &lt; Ilmen&gt; =E3=81=8A=E3=82=84=E3=
=81=99=E3=81=BF=E3=81=AA=E3=81=95=E3=81=84</div><div>09:42 &lt; lojbab&gt; =
durka: yes.=C2=A0 I want something from this discussion to make it back to =
the formal meeting as well, as motions, etc.=C2=A0 But that doesn&#39;t hav=
e to be formal commitment.</div><div>09:43 &lt; mungojelly&gt; guskant: ko =
jbosne doi se sinma</div><div>09:43 &lt; mukti&gt; lojbab: I am willing to =
commit to catching up with Robin on his research about publication options =
at Amazon, to supplement that research as needed, and to report back to the=
 membership.</div><div>09:44 &lt; lojbab&gt; mukti: sounds good, and anyone=
 else can supplement with other possibilities as needed for overseas produc=
tion.</div><div>09:45 &lt; Ilmen&gt; coi la selpa&#39;i</div><div>09:45 &lt=
; noras&gt; Have we general agreement on putting formal grammar chapter in =
separate book (with addition of mention of that fact in base CLL)?</div><di=
v>09:46 &lt; lojbab&gt; noras: I think that is copvered by the fact that Ro=
bin has included the EBNF in the current proof but not the YACC, so it will=
 have to be separate, =C2=A0Exactly HOW it will be issued can be discussed =
in the regular meeting.</div><div>09:48 &lt; mukti&gt; I would like to sugg=
est that we explicitly give Robin the discretion to include or exclude YACC=
, as necessary to expediently prepare for publication, with the additional =
proviso that if YACC is not included, that the availability of YACC is disc=
ussed in the edition.</div><div>09:48 &lt; lojbab&gt; I will note that we a=
re at 1:45 of this session =C2=A0Do we want to break at the hour for anothe=
r day or continue for up to an additional hour?</div><div>09:48 &lt; durka4=
2&gt; do we need some kind of motion to say the LLG endorses Robin&#39;s pr=
oof? it&#39;s unclear to me whether that is necessary since we already move=
d to authorize the money</div><div>09:48 &lt; durka42&gt; (well, epkat move=
d, but then he resigned, so it&#39;s kind of a ghost motion or something)</=
div><div>09:49 &lt; lojbab&gt; durka: that motion has not yet been voted (a=
nd I have not recognized the resignation so as to allow it to continue unti=
l voted upon).</div><div>09:49 &lt; Ilmen&gt; I agree with taking out the Y=
ACC grammar from CLL1.1 if deemed beneficial</div><div>09:49 &lt; durka42&g=
t; lojbab: je&#39;e</div><div>09:51 &lt; durka42&gt; well I don&#39;t have =
obligations in the next hour and it might be fun to discuss mukti&#39;s BPF=
K proposal</div><div>09:51 &lt; lojbab&gt; No answer on continuing beyond t=
he hour.=C2=A0 We will likely be talking about byfy,w hich almost certainly=
 will not be completely finished today evenw ith an additional hour.</div><=
div>09:52 &lt; durka42&gt; jinx, whoops</div><div>09:52 &lt; mukti&gt; lojb=
ab: I have this meeting down for 11-2 EST, so would be glad to continue at =
least for the next hour</div><div>09:52 &lt; selpahi&gt; I&#39;m here for a=
t least 6 more hours :)</div><div>09:52 &lt; lojbab&gt; I will hear suggest=
ions for when to have the next session as well.=C2=A0 Probably not more tha=
n 1/week and maybe better 1/ 2 weeks.</div><div>09:52 &lt; Ilmen&gt; At lea=
st Guskant ceased to take part</div><div>09:52 &lt;@xalbo&gt; I approve of =
continuing.</div><div>09:53 &lt; Ilmen&gt; as for me I&#39;m free for about=
 one hour more</div><div>09:53 &lt; mukti&gt; .i ta&#39;o coi la xalbo</div=
><div>09:53 &lt; mukti&gt; long time</div><div>09:53 &lt; lojbab&gt; We can=
 perhaps do the next session an hour or two earlier for guskant&#39;s benef=
it, but I don&#39;t jnow how many present are on the US west coast, which i=
s the other extreme,</div><div>09:53 &lt; noras&gt; Well - if we start disc=
ussing byfy and don&#39;t finish, it&#39;ll increase likelyhood of everyone=
 &quot;attending&quot; the next session because things will be up in the ai=
r.=C2=A0 So - ie e&#39;u ranji</div><div>09:54 &lt; mungojelly&gt; Is there=
 a *long-term* plan for when to transition this process to Lojban?[C</div><=
div>09:54 &lt; mukti&gt; banseljaj, are you on west coast time?</div><div>0=
9:54 &lt; mungojelly&gt; Guskant is pretty good at English, but the rest of=
 the ponjbopre aren&#39;t. I&#39;ve been speaking to them in Lojban and the=
y&#39;re rather annoyed on the whole that we still do everything in English=
.</div><div>09:55 &lt; lojbab&gt; this process?=C2=A0 Do you mean the meeti=
ng discussions?=C2=A0 Or having the merely having the channel go to Lojban?=
</div><div>09:55 &lt; Ilmen&gt; ua nai ru&#39;e .i xu ki&#39;icne lo ka ban=
gu pilno kei lo jbobau</div><div>09:55 &lt; mungojelly&gt; For instance the=
y&#39;d like new words to be defined in Lojban as well as English when they=
&#39;re put into the dictionary, please.</div><div>09:56 &lt; Ilmen&gt; mun=
gojelly: Yeah, I expect so</div><div>09:56 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: Just=
 in general, it seems increasingly odd to me over the years that these disc=
ussions continue to be in English. Now that there are non-English speaking =
Lojbanists it&#39;s becoming really painfully inappropriate. Just saying. :=
(</div><div>09:56 &lt; gleki&gt; mungojelly: but who can add new definition=
s if not they themselves?</div><div>09:56 &lt; durka42&gt; I always do that=
 with my words (granted I don&#39;t create that many words)</div><div>09:56=
 &lt; Ilmen&gt; mi xenru lo nu na tolcafne fa lo nu mi jmina lo glibau po&#=
39;o velski JVS</div><div>09:57 &lt; Ilmen&gt; .i sa&#39;e na&#39;e tolcafn=
e</div><div>09:57 &lt; mungojelly&gt; gleki: If the only definition is in E=
nglish then someone who doesn&#39;t speak English can&#39;t translate that =
definition?!</div><div>09:57 &lt; lojbab&gt; Back when we last considered g=
oing to Lojban in meetings, there was a committee that was going to devise =
the words and forms needed for parliamentary procedure.=C2=A0 Nothing was e=
ver completed to my knpowledge.</div><div>09:57 &lt; durka42&gt; no&#39;i, =
so what do we think about mukti&#39;s BPFK recharter proposal? I like it, I=
 think it&#39;s high time the BPFK considered the reality that there are se=
veral dialects of Lojban</div><div>09:58 &lt; mungojelly&gt; Lojban should =
become the lingua franca of our community. Not today, entirely, but in gene=
ral, long-term. Obviously.</div><div>09:58 &lt; lojbab&gt; I have not had t=
ime to consider the specifics of the proposal in depth - I saw it only a fe=
w minutes before logging on.</div><div>09:58 &lt; mukti&gt; my apologies fo=
r not distributing it earlier</div><div>09:59 &lt; selpahi&gt; Some specifi=
cs will have to be discussed, but I overall approve.</div><div>09:59 &lt; d=
urka42&gt; personally, my Lojban is not good enough (though I hope it will =
one day be so) to participate in an LLG meeting real-time like this. I coul=
d do it on the mriste.</div><div>09:59 &lt; Ilmen&gt; mi&#39;u -- me too</d=
iv><div>09:59 &lt; Ilmen&gt; (that&#39;s weird how {mi&#39;u} and &quot;me =
too&quot; sounds similar)</div><div>09:59 &lt; lojbab&gt; I would like cons=
idered as an alternative disbanding byfy *for now*.</div><div>10:00 &lt; du=
rka42&gt; I also note that Lojbab said at the beginning of the meeting that=
 posts could be made in other languages (but nobody has done so)</div><div>=
10:00 &lt; mukti&gt; mungojelly: Perhaps it would be possible to gradually =
adopt lojban proceedings. Maybe a good place to start would be BPFK. Presum=
ably the most active members of BPFK will have a level of lojban such that =
they are capable of holding some sessions entirely in lojban.</div><div>10:=
00 &lt; durka42&gt; disbanding? why?</div><div>10:00 &lt; Ilmen&gt; sa&#39;=
e mi tugni la selpa&#39;i</div><div>10:00 &lt; mukti&gt; I wouldn&#39;t wan=
t LLG to prescribe that to BPFK, but I can imagine BPFK might want to take =
up such an initiative on its own.</div><div>10:01 &lt; Ilmen&gt; ie</div><d=
iv>10:01 &lt; mungojelly&gt; mukti: It would be nice if the people talking =
about the future of Lojban spoke it, but that&#39;s not my general impressi=
on. I&#39;m on speaking terms of course with the dozen or so people who are=
 actually fairly fluent in Lojban and none of them have much of anything to=
 do with this process.</div><div>10:01 &lt; xorxes&gt; I approve of mukti&#=
39;s proposal too</div><div>10:01 &lt; mukti&gt; As I recall selpa&#39;i an=
d Ilmen, who have been some of the most active BPFK workers over the last y=
ear, have discussed working in lojban</div><div>10:02 &lt; gleki&gt; I appr=
ove of mukti&#39;s proposal too</div><div>10:02 &lt; noras&gt; I would like=
 the mission statement.=C2=A0 Is it just description?</div><div>10:02 &lt; =
lojbab&gt; durka: to best answer, we need to agree what the next task(s) fo=
r byfy.=C2=A0 I think that the next step is one in which the formal committ=
ee concept is probably not all that useful because of the whole issue of me=
mbership.</div><div>10:03 &lt; lojbab&gt; I am not sure that we need a jatn=
a either, in the sense that Robin has been (i.e a dictator-in-chief).</div>=
<div>10:03 &lt; Ilmen&gt; By the way, the cmavo description task of BPFK is=
 pretty close to completion</div><div>10:03 &lt;@xalbo&gt; The idea, as I u=
nderstand it, is for the BPFK to be a working group, with some fluidity as =
to how membership is decided and how proposals are approved. But the rigor =
is that any proposals BPFK does make need approval by LLG.</div><div>10:03 =
&lt; lojbab&gt; Ilmen: what does &quot;pretty close&quot; mean?=C2=A0 How l=
ong to completion?</div><div>10:04 &lt; noras&gt; In particular, I am conce=
rned about any change proposals (are they part of BYFY still?) that invalid=
ate already-written text or understanding; this discourages creation and le=
arning of the current state.</div><div>10:04 &lt;@xalbo&gt; In essence, the=
 LLG apppoints BPFKJ, BPFKJ decides how to appoint BPFK, BPFK proposes to L=
LG, LLG approves or disapproves, and then chooses a new BPFKJ.</div><div>10=
:05 &lt; mukti&gt; To my mind, the most important role the chair of BPFK pl=
ays is to act as the official point of contact between LLG and BPFK. Withou=
t such a point of contact, the relationship between LLG and BPFK is unclear=
.</div><div>10:05 &lt; Ilmen&gt; lojbab: I can&#39;t say for sure how long =
it can take, but last time I assessed the cmavo section state, all the cmav=
o had a definition, and only a handful of them had some blanks like &quot;X=
XXX&quot; in them (about 4~5 cmavo)</div><div>10:05 &lt; durka42&gt; noras:=
 precisely why the BPFK should be able to consider multiple standards. then=
 we can describe lojban as she is spoken without invalidating anything</div=
><div>10:05 &lt; selpahi&gt; In You&#39;re Doing It Wrong, Robin proposes t=
hat the LLG &quot;exists only to deal with monetary matters, and the BPFK i=
s for language definition issues.&quot;</div><div>10:05 &lt; lojbab&gt; Wha=
t does &quot;multiple standards&quot;ean?</div><div>10:05 &lt; lojbab&gt; m=
ean?</div><div>10:05 &lt; gleki&gt; noras: I dont think it will change much=
. The question is about relatively seldom used constructs. But note that a =
lot of previous texts contain mistakes and thus those texts can&#39;t be re=
commended as learning resources.</div><div>10:06 &lt; mungojelly&gt; noras:=
 The spoken language does change, regardless of what&#39;s proposed. Many e=
xperiments are ongoing, many past experiments have been broadly accepted in=
to the language as it&#39;s spoken.</div><div>10:06 &lt; mukti&gt; selpahi:=
 The 2008 Annual Meeting also passed similar language which is supposed to =
accompany the announcement of each annual meeting.</div><div>10:06 &lt; muk=
ti&gt; &quot;the LLG is a business organization, and is only tangentially i=
n the business of running the Lojban language&quot;</div><div>10:06 &lt; mu=
kti&gt; <a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+Meeting+Summary+2008">htt=
p://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+Meeting+Summary+2008</a></div><div>10:06 &lt;@x=
albo&gt; noras: The possiblity that there will be future changes discourage=
s current production, but the problem is that right now, current production=
 is hampered by a lingering sense of uncertainty.</div><div>10:07 &lt; selp=
ahi&gt; mukti: Right, but voting and being able to say no to what the BPFK =
comes up with is a power.</div><div>10:08 &lt; gleki&gt; noras: and in fact=
 xorlo reform already invalidated older texts. It wasn&#39;t me who approve=
d of that reform but exactly as you are saying it already discouraged produ=
cing new texts. We can&#39;t do anything now but to stabilize Lojban at a n=
ew level now with xorlo approved. The previous attempt of freezing the lang=
uage seems to have failed.</div><div>10:08 &lt; durka42&gt; it&#39;s a lang=
uage, it can&#39;t be frozen</div><div>10:09 &lt; selpahi&gt; Freeze it, ki=
ll it</div><div>10:09 &lt; lojbab&gt; The original idea as evolved in the f=
irst year or two of byfy, was I think that havinbg finished CLL1.1, we woul=
d be considering all of the proposed changes as a single lump, them having =
been implicit considered as part of the voting on individual sections,.</di=
v><div>10:09 &lt; Ilmen&gt; .i sa&#39;u lo nu fanta lo nu cenba cu nu catra=
</div><div>10:09 &lt; selpahi&gt; .u&#39;i</div><div>10:09 &lt; durka42&gt;=
 but if we can say &quot;that is correct according to Lojban &#39;97 (or wh=
atever it is called)&quot;, and &quot;that is correct according to Lojban &=
#39;14&quot;, then we don&#39;t have to hold new texts/speakers hostage to =
old ones</div><div>10:09 &lt; mukti&gt; selpahi: I agree that it&#39;s a po=
wer, but I also think that it is necessary for BPFK and LLG to have a forma=
l relationship. I tried to come up with a proposal that avoids the current =
problem, where BPFK is completely under the thumb of LLG, while avoiding an=
other potential problem where BPFK&#39;s activity becomes completely indepe=
ndent of LLG&#39;s values.</div><div>10:10 &lt; noras&gt; mi tugni la mukti=
</div><div>10:10 &lt; lojbab&gt; The single lumop idea did not presume that=
 experimental usages (in experimental cmavo space) would be formally decide=
d at this point.</div><div>10:11 &lt; mukti&gt; The current proposal limits=
 LLG&#39;s power to recognizing or not recognizing the work of BPFK. If LLG=
 withholds recognition from BPFK&#39;s work, I find it likely that no one w=
ill volunteer to do the BPFK work. Which is explicitly envisioned as a poss=
ibility.</div><div>10:12 &lt; xorxes&gt; since LLG and BPFK are roughly the=
 same people, that&#39;s unlikely anyway</div><div>10:12 &lt; Ilmen&gt; .u&=
#39;i</div><div>10:12 &lt; mukti&gt; However, given my (admittedly limited)=
 experience with the community, I find it unlikely that LLG would do anythi=
ng but applaud any progress BPFK makes.</div><div>10:12 &lt; mukti&gt; (Als=
o, what xorxes said.)</div><div>10:12 &lt; Ilmen&gt; ie</div><div>10:13 &lt=
; noras&gt; My concern is only that I have seem some proposals for changes =
that would, pe&#39;i, make Lojban not-Lojban (such as the last letter of gi=
smu shows which place of the bridi)</div><div>10:13 &lt; gleki&gt; u&#39;e<=
/div><div>10:13 &lt; gleki&gt; never seen this</div><div>10:14 &lt; lojbab&=
gt; xorxes: that is more or less why I am not so sure we need a formal BPFK=
 at this time. =C2=A0 Once the precriptive era completely ends, then the co=
ncept of BPFK as a standards group which really does need to be indepenednt=
 of LLG seems more important.</div><div>10:15 &lt; xorxes&gt; the prescript=
ive era is likely to still last a few decades, I would think</div><div>10:1=
5 &lt; xorxes&gt; judging from past experience</div><div>10:15 &lt; lojbab&=
gt; mukti: indeed!=C2=A0 BPFK results aren&#39;t really rejectable at this =
point.</div><div>10:15 &lt; mungojelly&gt; It&#39;s socially determined wha=
t&#39;s actually permitted to change. For instance the formal experimental =
cmavo space is x*, but people are actually experimenting now in the CV&#39;=
VV. There&#39;s social pressure on Curtis Franks to stop making so many of =
them, but it&#39;s because of how many and the style of them, not because t=
hey&#39;re CV&#39;VV instead of the authorized x-space.</div><div>10:16 &lt=
; gleki&gt; My only complaint is that curtis doesnt provide usage examples =
but that&#39;s mostly due to jbovlaste limitations</div><div>10:16 &lt; loj=
bab&gt; I would like to see the formal prescriptive era to end with CLL2.0 =
and the and dictionary publication.</div><div>10:16 &lt; mungojelly&gt; It =
could be nice in theory if we had some formal process for deciding where pe=
ople should experiment but at the moment it&#39;s determined by a set of ta=
boos, by people complaining about things that feel disruptive to them.</div=
><div>10:16 &lt; xorxes&gt; even if it did, that&#39;s likely several years=
</div><div>10:17 &lt; durka42&gt; I thought CV&#39;VV was also officially d=
esignated experimental space, but I think you&#39;re right in general yeah<=
/div><div>10:17 &lt; durka42&gt; xorxes: ie</div><div>10:17 &lt; noras&gt; =
Yes - CV&#39;VV is experimental - see page 51 of current CLL</div><div>10:1=
8 &lt; lojbab&gt; xorxes: I think much of the dissatisfaction is that we ha=
ve let it continue so long.=C2=A0 If we can figure out how to speed it up, =
then many problems disappear.</div><div>10:18 &lt; durka42&gt; but &quot;gi=
ve up and disband&quot; does not speed it up, in my view</div><div>10:18 &l=
t; xorxes&gt; right</div><div>10:18 &lt; lojbab&gt; Disband !=3D give up.</=
div><div>10:19 &lt; durka42&gt; ma te frica</div><div>10:19 &lt; mukti&gt; =
I&#39;d be happy for disbanding BPFK to be considered alongside a policy li=
ke the one I set forth. It would be good to know what the will of the commu=
nity is. In any case, I&#39;m confident that the status quo -- BPFK as defi=
ned by the 2002-2003 policy -- is making no one happy.</div><div>10:20 &lt;=
 mukti&gt; Personally, I very much would like to see a working BPFK.</div><=
div>10:20 &lt; lojbab&gt; It means that we don&#39;t (necessarily) have a j=
atna appointed by LLG =C2=A0The workers on BPFK can of course choose whatev=
er leader(s) they wish.</div><div>10:21 &lt; mungojelly&gt; The process I s=
upport is a federation of autonomous collectives. Such a process doesn&#39;=
t require central coordination of course, so I&#39;m not asking for any sup=
port or acknowledgement, just saying, that&#39;s the way I&#39;m heading.</=
div><div>10:21 &lt; lojbab&gt; And as at present, the membersof BPFK at any=
 time are pretty much those who do something.</div><div>10:21 &lt;@xalbo&gt=
; lojbab: I don&#39;t understand what you&#39;re proposing. Disband BPFK, c=
hange its structure, something else?</div><div>10:21 &lt; durka42&gt; I thi=
nk I misunderstood &quot;disband&quot;</div><div>10:21 &lt; gleki&gt; I hop=
e J.Cowan wont assume that his opinion is no longer listened to during BPFK=
-related discussions</div><div>10:22 &lt; mukti&gt; I&#39;d like to point o=
ut that my proposal explicitly does not recommend that the BPFK jatna be ap=
pointed, which is a major difference with the current policy.</div><div>10:=
22 &lt;@xalbo&gt; Yeah, I took &quot;disband&quot; to mean &quot;no more BP=
FK&quot;</div><div>10:22 &lt; mukti&gt; (Though it does require LLG to reaf=
firm the relationship with BPFK through a ratifying vote.)</div><div>10:23 =
&lt; mukti&gt; gleki: You mean la balgenpre ?</div><div>10:23 &lt; selpahi&=
gt; There is a lot of work left to be done for BPFK or whoever. The languag=
e is severly underdocumented when it comes to its semantics.</div><div>10:2=
3 &lt; lojbab&gt; By disband, I mean that the formal organization would no =
longer exist as a (quasi-independent) committee of LLG.=C2=A0 There would s=
till be the presumably informal group of &quot;whoever is working on the st=
andard at the moment&quot;</div><div>10:24 &lt; lojbab&gt; It is part of th=
e standard for Lojban that semantics are not prescribed.</div><div>10:24 &l=
t;@xalbo&gt; ue</div><div>10:24 &lt; selpahi&gt; I know that is your positi=
on.</div><div>10:24 &lt; mungojelly&gt; Incidentally yeah if someone actual=
ly were to work on a descriptive accounting of Lojban as it&#39;s actually =
spoken today, that would be crazy useful to me and to everyone. It&#39;s a =
lot harder to actually figure out what&#39;s going on that to just assert u=
ntrue things, though. :/</div><div>10:24 &lt; selpahi&gt; But it&#39;s not =
even *described* either</div><div>10:24 &lt; Ilmen&gt; Shouldn&#39;t Lojban=
 be able to be unambiguously translated to formal predicate logic formulae?=
</div><div>10:24 &lt; selpahi&gt; Yes.</div><div>10:25 &lt; selpahi&gt; Abs=
olutely.</div><div>10:25 &lt; b_jonas&gt; Ilmen: no</div><div>10:25 &lt; no=
ras&gt; If byfy is only descriptive, I&#39;m probably OK.=C2=A0 Again, my c=
oncern is that those most wanting to *revise* the language would predominat=
e and thus try to &quot;evolve&quot; the language by fiat.</div><div>10:26 =
&lt; selpahi&gt; That doesn&#39;t work anyway.</div><div>10:26 &lt; mungoje=
lly&gt; Yeah, we informally worked out on IRC a set of transformations from=
 the spoken crunched up form to a sort of perfect ideal extended form we ha=
ve a shared sketch of in our heads. Everything expands out into simple brid=
i explaining the relationships in the sentence, I guess that&#39;s the deep=
 form of it. Beautiful language.</div><div>10:26 &lt; Ilmen&gt; ma na gunka=
 sei malgli</div><div>10:26 &lt; lojbab&gt; There are a lot of things (the =
descriptive accounting, the formal predicate logic translation, the semanti=
cs) that MIGHT be produced by a byfy.=C2=A0 But the next step is to finish =
the cmavo definitions, and approve any needed changes, and put out CLL2.0 .=
..</div><div>10:26 &lt; selpahi&gt; Fiats don&#39;t work.</div><div>10:26 &=
lt; gleki&gt; mukti: i mean if BPFK&#39;s work isnt official then xalbo, ai=
onys, Cowan might assume that their votes no longer mean anything and thus =
they are driven out of Lojbanistan</div><div>10:26 &lt; Ilmen&gt; je&#39;e<=
/div><div>10:26 &lt; lojbab&gt; and a ddictiomnary that would (finally!) in=
clude the cmavo.</div><div>10:27 &lt; mukti&gt; I expect there to be many d=
isagreements going forward, as there have been in the past. However, I&#39;=
m not aware of anybody who is trying to reduce lojban to their personal or =
proposed understanding of it. There&#39;s a lot of tolerance for language v=
arieties at all levels.</div><div>10:28 &lt; mungojelly&gt; I got sick enou=
gh of jbovlaste BTW that I made my own dictionary for less formal descripti=
ons of things: <a href=3D"https://github.com/mungojelly/mlevlaste">https://=
github.com/mungojelly/mlevlaste</a> Anyone feel free to push me changes. la=
 mlevlaste:la jbovlaste::Hitchhiker&#39;s Guide to the Galaxy:Encyclopedia =
Galactica</div><div>10:29 &lt; lojbab&gt; I see the next major job to be ex=
tracting from the cmavo definitions a complete set of change proposals (whi=
ch I would actually like to see written as a set of change pages to CLL 1.1=
, thereby making CLL2.0 relatively easy to produce).</div><div>10:29 &lt; s=
elpahi&gt; It&#39;s going to be very hard to produce the content, since so =
much has changed, and most of the examples are out of date.</div><div>10:30=
 &lt; selpahi&gt; xorlo needs a new chapter.</div><div>10:30 &lt; gleki&gt;=
 I suggest that we assign someone to monitor all commits to github CLL and =
then when time comes present the changelog to LLG members.</div><div>10:30 =
&lt; selpahi&gt; For which I suggest using guskant&#39;s write-up as a pote=
ntial basis</div><div>10:30 &lt; selpahi&gt; (or parts of it)</div><div>10:=
30 &lt; lojbab&gt; That job is probably done best informally more or less t=
he way things have been done for the last few years..</div><div>10:30 &lt; =
mungojelly&gt; So we&#39;re talking about catching up about the standard ol=
d cmavo, right? We&#39;re not really talking about catching up to lo&#39;ai=
/sa&#39;ai/le&#39;ai even which is years and years ago now?!</div><div>10:3=
1 &lt; selpahi&gt; mungojelly: I think some aren&#39;t aware that Lojban &#=
39;97 isn&#39;t spoken much anymore.</div><div>10:31 &lt; lojbab&gt; and =
=C2=A0that existing job has been neither helped nor hindered by the existen=
ce of a jatna,.</div><div>10:31 &lt; gleki&gt; I&#39;m afraid lo&#39;ai/sa&=
#39;ai isnt for CLL 1.1. It will take a lot of time to integrate many other=
 fixes. It&#39;s for CLL 2.0</div><div>10:31 &lt; mungojelly&gt; That&#39;d=
 be nice somehow to see lo&#39;ai/sa&#39;ai/le&#39;ai acknowledged somewher=
e as formally existing, I&#39;d feel nice about that somehow, as if spoken =
Lojban had finally gotten some recognition or something.</div><div>10:31 &l=
t; mukti&gt; My concern with the status quo of BPFK and the Baseline Policy=
 might be fairly boiled down to the idea that if LLG continues on the path =
of declaring what *other* people should do, then we can expect for the work=
 to continue to fail to get done.</div><div>10:32 &lt; durka42&gt; indeed</=
div><div>10:32 &lt; lojbab&gt; If people want to include some of the experi=
mental cmavo in 2.0. that seems fine by me. IF they get proposed with chang=
e pages to CLL so we know what has changed.</div><div>10:32 &lt; mungojelly=
&gt; selpahi: Lojban &#39;97 was very rarely spoken, it was a literary lang=
uage. And today&#39;s Lojban is rarely spoken out loud, it&#39;s still a ty=
ped language. But we&#39;re at the edge of that next transition.</div><div>=
10:33 &lt; mukti&gt; If LLG&#39;s policy is that CLL 2.0 must be composed o=
f change-proposals relative to lojban-97, then we had better know where we =
can find some people interested in doing that kind of work.</div><div>10:33=
 &lt; Ilmen&gt; za&#39;a la kanxe cu di&#39;a .irci</div><div>10:33 &lt; mu=
kti&gt; I&#39;m not aware of any such people.</div><div>10:33 &lt; mungojel=
ly&gt; Yeah I think of the old standard as a historical curiosity.</div><di=
v>10:33 &lt; mungojelly&gt; I&#39;m roughly as interested in documenting ou=
r differences with mijyjbo.</div><div>10:34 &lt; lojbab&gt; As for me, I us=
e only what is in CLL/ =C2=A0If someone uses one or more experimental cmavo=
, I have utterly no idea what they have said, and no idea where to look it =
up.=C2=A0 This is one reason why I haven&#39;t made actually using the lang=
uage a priority.</div><div>10:34 &lt; mungojelly&gt; But I mean I guess I c=
ould help if it was in some context that felt like it was being respectful =
to the new language and its speakers. I wouldn&#39;t want to be involved in=
 something that&#39;s prescribing after all this time that it&#39;s OK for =
people to start saying lo&#39;ai/sa&#39;ai/le&#39;ai, that seems rude someh=
ow.</div><div>10:34 &lt; selpahi&gt; I&#39;m not even talking about new cma=
vo. The existing cmavo are used differently too.</div><div>10:34 &lt; lojba=
b&gt; If the language has changed so much from the CLL version in actual us=
age, I likely will never bother to learn it.</div><div>10:34 &lt; mungojell=
y&gt; lojbab: That&#39;s absurd. You need to learn the language we speak or=
 get out.</div><div>10:34 &lt; selpahi&gt; For example ZAhO</div><div>10:35=
 &lt; gleki&gt; May I say in short what I suppose should be done? Let me im=
agine one scenario. 1. robin says: now you may push requests to gihub CLL i=
nto one of the branches. Then members of LLG start pushing requests and one=
 of us (e.g. Mukti or me or whoever is assigned) accept them checking wheth=
er they dont break the flow of the explanations in the book. 3. Then this p=
erson reports to LLG what has been done. 4. Following LLG&#39;s resolution =
necessary changes (like e.g. rolling some commits back) are made. 5. Anothe=
r report is done 6. CLL 2.0 is printed. mu&#39;o</div><div>10:35 &lt; mungo=
jelly&gt; lojbab: What are you going to find people who want to learn that =
Lojban too? What do you even mean? Learn Lojban!</div><div>10:35 &lt; mungo=
jelly&gt; .e&#39;o sai ko sarji la .lojban.</div><div>10:35 &lt; mungojelly=
&gt; .e&#39;o sai ko ba&#39;e cilre fi la .lojban.</div><div>10:36 &lt; Ilm=
en&gt; gleki: your post is cut</div><div>10:36 &lt; mungojelly&gt; It&#39;s=
 a living spoken language. It doesn&#39;t need advice about its own grammar=
, it doesn&#39;t need to be told how its grammar works by people who can=
9;t speak it. It needs introductory materials. And speakers.</div><div>10:3=
6 &lt; gleki&gt; Ilmen: doesnt it end in mu&#39;o?</div><div>10:37 &lt; Ilm=
en&gt; gleki: &quot;Following LLG&#39;s resolution neces---&quot;</div><div=
>10:37 &lt; lojbab&gt; mungojelly: what is the reference of &quot;la lojban=
&quot;?=C2=A0 If it is not CLL, I have no way to know what it is.</div><div=
>10:37 &lt; selpahi&gt; I mean, if you read xorxes&#39; Alice in Wonderland=
, that&#39;s roughly how we speak Lojban nowadays (me anyway). If the langu=
age in that book looks weird to you, you might get lost speaking with moder=
n Lojbanists.</div><div>10:37 &lt; banseljaj&gt; mukti: I&#39;m on Pakistan=
 Standard Time. Sorry I dropped off.</div><div>10:37 &lt; selpahi&gt; There=
 are some changes in addition to it, like {ka} being very common now</div><=
div>10:37 &lt; mukti&gt; banseljaj: ua sai</div><div>10:37 &lt; mungojelly&=
gt; lojbab: &quot;I only use what is in CLL&quot; is like being a modern En=
glish speaker and saying &quot;I only use what&#39;s in shakespeare.&quot; =
It&#39;s completely absurd.</div><div>10:37 &lt; selpahi&gt; We simply unde=
rstand the language better</div><div>10:37 &lt; gleki&gt; May I say in shor=
t what I suppose should be done? Let me imagine one scenario.=C2=A0</div><d=
iv>10:37 &lt; gleki&gt; 1. Robin says: now you may push requests to github =
CLL into one of the branches. Then members of LLG start pushing requests an=
d one of us (e.g. Mukti or me or whoever is assigned) accept them checking =
whether they dont break the flow of the explanations in the book. 3. Then t=
his person reports to LLG what has been done.</div><div>10:38 &lt; gleki&gt=
; 4. Following LLG&#39;s resolution necessary changes (like e.g. rolling so=
me commits back) are made. 5. Another report is done 6. CLL 2.0 is printed.=
 mu&#39;o=C2=A0</div><div>10:38 &lt; selpahi&gt; so the language use has ch=
anged</div><div>10:38 &lt; Ilmen&gt; ki&#39;e gy</div><div>10:38 &lt; lojba=
b&gt; It may be absurd, but it is reality.=C2=A0 If I joined an IRC channel=
 or talked with you on the phone, that would be what I would use.=C2=A0 And=
 I have no idea how to even learn that which is not documented.</div><div>1=
0:38 &lt; gleki&gt; ^ that&#39;s what bother me most</div><div>10:38 &lt; l=
ojbab&gt; I am extremely poor in learning languages, you may understand.</d=
iv><div>10:39 &lt; selpahi&gt; We all have learned an undocumented form of =
Lojban though, but yes, it&#39;s still a problem.</div><div>10:39 &lt; mung=
ojelly&gt; Most of what had to change in order to make Lojban a speakable l=
anguage was the gismu meanings had to be jiggled. Our collective understand=
ing of the meanings has been jiggled just enough until we could get our tho=
ughts through.</div><div>10:39 &lt; mungojelly&gt; Oh also there&#39;s a lo=
t that was jiggled around in the logical implications of things.</div><div>=
10:39 &lt; mungojelly&gt; There&#39;s a coherent semantics to spoken Lojban=
 today.</div><div>10:39 &lt; gleki&gt; That xorlo wasn&#39;t integrated int=
o CLL or any other printed documents. This cause huge problems with the lan=
guage. We need to finally document the current state of affairs and out it =
on paper.</div><div>10:40 &lt; mungojelly&gt; And there wasn&#39;t to the o=
ld theoretical language before it was spoken, or at least if you tried to s=
ay anything people would explain to you how your statement had really weird=
 implications.</div><div>10:40 &lt; lojbab&gt; gleki: iesai</div><div>10:40=
 &lt; mungojelly&gt; Today&#39;s Lojban has a sensible set of implications =
around everything, it&#39;s very practical.</div><div>10:40 &lt; mukti&gt; =
At the risk of sounding like I&#39;m proposing to cut a baby in two: I don&=
#39;t see a necessary conflict in between lojbab&#39;s position that his un=
derstanding of lojban is defined by CLL , and the position of those like my=
self who speak a newer variety of the language.</div><div>10:40 &lt; gleki&=
gt; neither me.</div><div>10:41 &lt; selpahi&gt; Not if they are recognized=
 as different versions</div><div>10:41 &lt; mungojelly&gt; mukti: But he=
9;s not saying he has that understanding. If there were someone SPEAKING a =
CLL Lojban, that&#39;d be cool. I&#39;d go chat with them and try to follow=
 those rules. That community has never existed.</div><div>10:41 &lt; mukti&=
gt; Those positions can&#39;t co-exist under the 2002-3 Baseline Policy. Bu=
t I see that as a defect in the policy, not in the way that we all use lojb=
an.</div><div>10:41 &lt; mungojelly&gt; There&#39;s only one spoken Lojban.=
 We should probably document that one and not a fantasy.</div><div>10:41 &l=
t; selpahi&gt; Agreed</div><div>10:41 &lt; selpahi&gt; @mukti</div><div>10:=
41 &lt; lojbab&gt; Then someone needs to document the new version.</div><di=
v>10:41 &lt; noras&gt; So, I see byfy as the way toward documenting the &qu=
ot;newer variety&quot; or newer varieties.</div><div>10:41 &lt; durka42&gt;=
 yeah</div><div>10:42 &lt; mungojelly&gt; That&#39;d be great. I&#39;d real=
ly like if someone would try to produce comprehensive documentation of Lojb=
an as it&#39;s spoken. Very useful.</div><div>10:42 &lt; gleki&gt; AndI&#39=
;m not opposed to xorlo. I&#39;m opposed on how politically and technically=
 it was done. &quot;No, you dont speak correct Lojban - How do you know? - =
I&#39;m one of the authors of xorlo? - I have no idea what is xorlo. I just=
 bought CLL, nothing is said there about it.&quot;</div><div>10:42 &lt; gle=
ki&gt; *AndI&#39;m not opposed to xorlo. I&#39;m opposed on how politically=
 and technically it was done. &quot;No, you dont speak correct Lojban - How=
 do you know? - I&#39;m one of the authors of xorlo. - I have no idea what =
is xorlo. I just bought CLL, nothing is said there about it.&quot;</div><di=
v>10:42 &lt; mungojelly&gt; Yes, it was messy.</div><div>10:42 &lt; mukti&g=
t; I think it can be such a vehicle. But one of the problems with the curre=
nt definition of BPFK, is that it&#39;s primary task is to flesh out the do=
cumentation of CLL.</div><div>10:42 &lt; mungojelly&gt; But it was necessar=
y in order to get the language in working order.</div><div>10:43 &lt; mungo=
jelly&gt; There&#39;s other changes than xorlo that have been made I think =
that are equally significant but they&#39;re less easy to explain or fight =
over, they&#39;re in the deep implications of things.</div><div>10:43 &lt; =
noras&gt; If byfy as-is won&#39;t serve the purpose of documenting newer ve=
rsion(s), then let&#39;s set up byfy-2 to do so.</div><div>10:43 &lt; mungo=
jelly&gt; What&#39;s the sense in talking in English about documenting Lojb=
an, though?</div><div>10:44 &lt; gleki&gt; I&#39;m sure when Robin says &qu=
ot;Go!&quot; the version on github will get a lot of contributors.</div><di=
v>10:44 &lt; lojbab&gt; So what is needed to flesh out the new 1.1 CLL in o=
rder to describe/prescribe the current language at the same level.=C2=A0 Ad=
ding in semantics would be a whole new chunk, even assuming that someone ha=
s an idea how to document semantics in language people can understand.</div=
><div>10:44 &lt; mungojelly&gt; We can get more people involved by speaking=
 English-- but not, necessarily, more people who know enough about modern L=
ojban to document it.</div><div>10:45 &lt; mungojelly&gt; English conversat=
ion about Lojban these days is pointless bikeshedding, Lojban conversation =
about Lojban is all very practical and productive and focused on making the=
 language work.</div><div>10:45 &lt; lojbab&gt; Our problem isn</div><div>1=
0:45 &lt; mukti&gt; noras: I would love to see people continue the work of =
BPFK as originally envisioned, although my main concern is to remove obstac=
les from the work that most people expect BPFK to be doing.</div><div>10:46=
 &lt; mukti&gt; If that requires two such bodies, so be it!</div><div>10:46=
 &lt; lojbab&gt; Our problem isn&#39;t so much number of people, but number=
 of people who actually get some unit of work to completion. =C2=A0most stu=
ff gets partially done and then dropped.</div><div>10:47 &lt; gleki&gt; For=
 now I&#39;m only independently formalizing the interaction of te sumti wit=
hin each gismu and collecting usage examples for all words inclduing cmavo.=
 I should say MOST te sumti have never been used. 90% of the language is a =
hole that only has obscure definiions in gimste. As for other parts of sema=
ntics (if what I just said is relevant to semantics) what are they? Definin=
g certain gismu in terms of other gismu in pure Lojban?</div><div>10:47 &lt=
; mukti&gt; mungojelly: mi pacna lo nu byfy cu ta&#39;e casnu bau lo jbobau=
</div><div>10:47 &lt;@xalbo&gt; I put some work into BPFK. At the time, I t=
hought the purpose was to document the cmavo (including any changes). It se=
ems now like what&#39;s being said is that I should have been proposing cha=
nges straight to CLL, instead of on a separate page.</div><div>10:48 &lt; d=
urka42&gt; documenting cmavo is also important</div><div>10:48 &lt; durka42=
&gt; as of now the BPFK sections are a much better cmavo reference than the=
 ma&#39;oste</div><div>10:48 &lt;@xalbo&gt; So now I feel like I&#39;m bein=
g told that the existing BPFK pages are a waste of everyone&#39;s work, sor=
ry, redo it as diffs against a different document or it doesn&#39;t count.<=
/div><div>10:48 &lt; gleki&gt; xalbo: to what page have you been proposing =
it?</div><div>10:48 &lt; selpahi&gt; gleki: to&#39;u lo si&#39;o sko&#39;op=
u</div><div>10:48 &lt; mungojelly&gt; mukti: la&#39;a nai jbobausnu ku&#39;=
i .i drata jitro bo lanxe .i mu&#39;a mi binxo lo mutce vlipa lo nu jbobau =
ra&#39;u casnu .i cinmo na&#39;e djica .ai fa du&#39;e ca vlipa</div><div>1=
0:48 &lt;@xalbo&gt; The BPFK pages on the wiki (I think Attitudinal modifie=
rs, or something, but that&#39;s not the point.)</div><div>10:49 &lt; durka=
42&gt; I don&#39;t see anyone (except lojbab, maybe, I&#39;m still not sure=
) saying those pages need to go away</div><div>10:49 &lt; gleki&gt; I think=
 the term &quot;semantics&quot; is too broad. For me &quot;semantics&quot; =
was always something like mlismu or WordNet</div><div>10:49 &lt; mungojelly=
&gt; yeah those are really well done, xalbo, i remember reading through tho=
se pages and thinking, shit, wow, someone finally documented all this stuff=
</div><div>10:49 &lt; durka42&gt; I hope those will be finished soon and pu=
t into a real dictionary</div><div>10:49 &lt;@xalbo&gt; .u&#39;u de&#39;a j=
undi</div><div>10:49 &lt; durka42&gt; co&#39;oxy</div><div>10:49 &lt; lojba=
b&gt; xalbo: =C2=A0finishing CLL 1.1 (which is essentially correcting all t=
he typos and known errors in the 1997 edition) was the first job.=C2=A0 Now=
 we can turn to documenting how 1997 Lojban has changed until the present (=
in cmavo space first, gismu changes should come later)</div><div>10:50 &lt;=
 gleki&gt; xalbo: how can you push anything to CLL? We dont have a ready-to=
-commit CLL yet.</div><div>10:50 &lt; mukti&gt; I see the writing of CLL (o=
r new textbooks for that matter) as orthogonal to the work of BPFK. I would=
 expect the authors of such text to use the output of BPFK in their work, b=
ut would not expect BPFK to produce popular documents.</div><div>10:50 &lt;=
 mungojelly&gt; lojbab: .. when exactly were you planning to document how t=
he gismu have changed? Because @gismu just tweeted an &quot;official&quot; =
definition of zabna, confusing the fuck out of everyone, sigh.</div><div>10=
:51 &lt; gleki&gt; mungojelly: from where do they take definitions? Robin (=
the jatna at that time) changed their definitions by fiat. Everyone includi=
ng lojbab approved.</div><div>10:51 &lt; mungojelly&gt; At least people hav=
e stopped telling each other that they&#39;re &quot;using mabla wrong.&quot=
; At least we&#39;ve collectively come to an understanding that we can&#39;=
t wait for official recognition and that it is absolutely clearly definitel=
y the definition itself that&#39;s wrong.</div><div>10:52 &lt; lojbab&gt; T=
he result of whatever BPFK does has to be in some sort of document.=C2=A0 T=
hat doument will (eventually) supersede CLL as THE standard for the languag=
e.=C2=A0 If BPFK produces no product, what is the standard?</div><div>10:52=
 &lt; selpahi&gt; gleki: .i ku&#39;i ma&#39;a na zifre lo ka ningau lo jbov=
laste smuvelski pe la&#39;o me. officialdata .me (to nu bebna ie toi)</div>=
<div>10:52 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: The standard for the language is the=
 expressions produced by its most competent speakers, for instance its high=
est pieces of art, as in other living languages.</div><div>10:52 &lt; gleki=
&gt; selpahi: ja&#39;ozo&#39;o =C2=A0la&#39;o <a href=3D"http://gy.official=
data.gy">gy.officialdata.gy</a>. zmadu la camgusmis lo ka vlipa i uinai la&=
#39;o <a href=3D"http://gy.officialdata.gy">gy.officialdata.gy</a>. na remn=
a</div><div>10:52 &lt; mukti&gt; I also see the documentation of language c=
hange (diachronic, in linguistic terms) as a separate task from the descrip=
tion of any stage of the language as it is spoken (&quot;synchronic&quot;)<=
/div><div>10:53 &lt; lojbab&gt; (Anotjher purpose of long-term BPFK was to =
be the certification of Lojban materials as being compliant with the standa=
rd, but you need a standard first.</div><div>10:53 &lt; mukti&gt; Both are =
interesting tasks, but I think we erect an unnecessary obstacle in yoking t=
hem together</div><div>10:53 &lt; selpahi&gt; mukti: Yes, good point. A ver=
sion can be documented without also having to explain how it differs from a=
ny given other version</div><div>10:54 &lt; mungojelly&gt; I think it&#39;d=
 be an interesting experiment to see whether a language could be produced b=
y prescriptive fiat, but this is no longer a place where that experiment ca=
n be properly conducted.</div><div>10:54 &lt; lojbab&gt; I have no idea wha=
t @gismu is.=C2=A0 I use the 1994 gismu list, and only that list, when I wr=
ite.</div><div>10:54 &lt; durka42&gt; the requirement to phrase everything =
as diffs against a version of Lojban that few speak, and nobody is willing =
to finish documenting, is the catch-22 that we need to remove (or one of th=
em, anyway) for BPFK to be effective</div><div>10:54 &lt; selpahi&gt; Yes, =
I think so.</div><div>10:54 &lt; lojbab&gt; And I don&#39;t have a cell pho=
ne, so I have no idea what is being tweeted (or any other form of social ne=
tworking).</div><div>10:54 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: Do you? Do you write=
 in Lojban? It&#39;s not that hard, you&#39;d pick it up in a few months if=
 you seriously tried.</div><div>10:55 &lt; mukti&gt; To my mind, for exampl=
e, one of the significant barriers to understanding the contemporary gadri =
system -- the one that has been in use for the last decade -- is that almos=
t all of the materials describe it diachronically</div><div>10:55 &lt; mung=
ojelly&gt; lojbab: I&#39;d be happy to speak to you on the old fashioned ph=
one system. Or, heck, I&#39;ll write you paper letters.</div><div>10:55 &lt=
; mungojelly&gt; You can&#39;t tell me you&#39;re not up to date on paper. =
:p</div><div>10:55 &lt; durka42&gt; @gismu tweets random lines from the 199=
4 gismu.txt, as far as I can tell</div><div>10:55 &lt; selpahi&gt; The defi=
nition on jbovlaste for &quot;zabna&quot; and &quot;mabla&quot; are still t=
he old ones, which nobody uses. Robin tried to get the new definitions appr=
oved by &quot;fiat&quot;, but we still can&#39;t update officialdata on jbo=
vlaste.=C2=A0 But who can? Why don&#39;t we update zabna and mabla?</div><d=
iv>10:56 &lt; Ilmen&gt; durka42: well, but reusing CLL&#39;s content is eas=
ier than rewritting whole chapters from scratch :p</div><div>10:56 &lt; dur=
ka42&gt; well, we _can_, we have the keys</div><div>10:56 &lt; selpahi&gt; =
Yes, but we socially can&#39;t.</div><div>10:56 &lt; durka42&gt; we just do=
n&#39;t use them out of some sense of propriety/officialism</div><div>10:56=
 &lt; mungojelly&gt; Do it right now, then. Put up the real definition. Sto=
p confusing the nintadni.</div><div>10:57 &lt; durka42&gt; I would be in su=
pport of that</div><div>10:57 &lt; Ilmen&gt; The change in zabna/mabla&#39;=
s meaning has been officially and exceptionally approved, as far as I remem=
ber.</div><div>10:57 &lt; mungojelly&gt; x1 is fucked is the definition. yo=
u don&#39;t even need any x2 or x3 at all, fuck em. x1 is shitty, x1 sucks,=
 x1 is so so bad, fuck that x1, fuck it. that&#39;s all.</div><div>10:57 &l=
t; durka42&gt; several times</div><div>10:57 &lt; mukti&gt; One barrier I t=
hink is that the policy is dense and contradictory. Anyone who understands,=
 for example, ZG raise their hands.</div><div>10:58 &lt; noras&gt; mungojel=
ly: If that is the definition, and I never use &quot;fuck&quot;, then I rep=
eal the work &quot;malglico&quot;</div><div>10:58 &lt; mungojelly&gt; If th=
is meeting results in a proper definition of &quot;mabla&quot; being posted=
 then I&#39;ll have to eat my words that nothing will come of this meeting.=
 Just that alone would be fantastic.</div><div>10:58 &lt; mukti&gt; Even be=
fore ZG, the Baseline Policy of 2002-3 is a huge document, with large segme=
nts devoted to a hopeful period once the BPFK had completed its work.</div>=
<div>10:58 &lt; lojbab&gt; @xalbo: I agree that the existing cmavo pages ar=
e indeed very useful to many people, once they are approved.=C2=A0 Thecurre=
nt text =C2=A0presumably can be turned into dictionary definitions rather e=
asily.=C2=A0 But they also need to be turned into descriptive text like CLL=
..</div><div>10:58 &lt; durka42&gt; I move to update the jbovlaste entries =
for {mabla} and {zabna}. Can I get a second?</div><div>10:58 &lt; mungojell=
y&gt; noras: Well in English you have to talk unrelatedly about sex or excr=
ement or whatever. In Lojban mal- just adds a swearishness without any part=
icular context other than what you&#39;re adding it to.</div><div>10:59 &lt=
; selpahi&gt; The definition most use is: x1 is execrable/deplorable/wretch=
ed/shitty/awful/rotten/miserable/contemptible/crappy/inferior/low-quality i=
n property x2 by standard x3; x1 stinks/sucks in aspect x2 according to x3.=
</div><div>10:59 &lt; Ilmen&gt; durka42: if one wants to keep officialdata&=
#39;s def, why not adding the new official def with 10001 upvotes? :)</div>=
<div>10:59 &lt; lojbab&gt; mostly because until they have made it imnto CLL=
 form as well, CLL is incompatible with the cmavo pages.</div><div>10:59 &l=
t; noras&gt; Mungojelly: Yes, but I don&#39;t swear</div><div>10:59 &lt; du=
rka42&gt; Ilmen: 20000</div><div>10:59 &lt; Ilmen&gt; ie</div><div>10:59 &l=
t; mukti&gt; I&#39;d like to recognize that there is something definitively=
 heroic about the fact that, despite the tangled process and the frustratio=
n of not being able to make needed changes for years, people still care.</d=
iv><div>11:00 &lt; mungojelly&gt; selpahi: ok yeah property for x2, that=
9;s useful, i don&#39;t see it used much but that&#39;s what you&#39;d say =
&quot;mabla lo ka skari&quot; screwed up in what colors it is</div><div>11:=
00 &lt; mukti&gt; This is a good thing. This is hopeful.</div><div>11:00 &l=
t; durka42&gt; okay, motion amended to give 20000 updates to the new-and-ap=
proved definitions of mabla+zabna</div><div>11:00 &lt; mukti&gt; (But let&#=
39;s not take it for granted.)</div><div>11:00 &lt; durka42&gt; whoops</div=
><div>11:00 &lt; durka42&gt; okay, motion amended to give 20000 upvotes to =
the new-and-approved definitions of mabla+zabna</div><div>11:00 &lt; durka4=
2&gt; mukti: ie</div><div>11:00 &lt; durka42&gt; mukti: clearly, there is a=
 lot of pent-up frustration as well</div><div>11:01 &lt; durka42&gt; I&#39;=
ll make my motion on the mriste if noone seconds it here</div><div>11:01 &l=
t; selpahi&gt; We can&#39;t vote here.</div><div>11:01 &lt; mungojelly&gt; =
noras: I bet you have words in your idiolect that count as swears to you. I=
 think it&#39;s an instinct. I&#39;ve heard people use a whole different pa=
rt of their brain for swear than for other words, which matches my feeling.=
</div><div>11:01 &lt; Ilmen&gt; I approve @durka42 for the upvotes</div><di=
v>11:02 &lt; selpahi&gt; Then you should also update {lo} ...</div><div>11:=
02 &lt; durka42&gt; we can make motions though</div><div>11:02 &lt; lojbab&=
gt; mungojelly: I don&#39;t know who is a competent speaker.=C2=A0 The comm=
ittee to define such a thing consists of Pierre and has produced little pro=
duct,</div><div>11:02 &lt; durka42&gt; selpahi: I&#39;d like to bulk-update=
 the cmavo definitions from the BPFK pages, as well</div><div>11:02 &lt; du=
rka42&gt; but the attitudinals aren&#39;t finished</div><div>11:02 &lt; mun=
gojelly&gt; Do I have a definition in mlevlaste yet for {lo}? I don&#39;t t=
hink so. I should put something silly.</div><div>11:02 &lt; durka42&gt; sel=
pahi: maybe we can pull in the BPFK defs by selma&#39;o, then we can do it =
piecemeal</div><div>11:03 &lt; selpahi&gt; Good idea</div><div>11:03 &lt; s=
elpahi&gt; Unfortunately each selma&#39;o has a different style of definiti=
on, different level of detail (because different authors)</div><div>11:03 &=
lt; selpahi&gt; I don&#39;t know if they should be made to match</div><div>=
11:03 &lt; durka42&gt; right</div><div>11:03 &lt; durka42&gt; this can be d=
one, though</div><div>11:04 &lt; Ilmen&gt; Aso, maybe it&#39;s worth keepin=
g the old-fashioned definition entries. What about concurrent entries?</div=
><div>11:04 &lt; gleki&gt; durka42: only use llg-members mriste.</div><div>=
11:04 &lt; selpahi&gt; Just make a new user called BPFK.</div><div>11:04 &l=
t; Ilmen&gt; (With more upvotes li&#39;a)</div><div>11:04 &lt; durka42&gt; =
gleki: yes that&#39;s what I meant</div><div>11:04 &lt; mukti&gt; As I unde=
rstand it, jbovlaste&#39;s &quot;official&quot; status is actually pretty m=
urky. Though it seems like a central institution these days, it looked much=
 different on the mriste from 2003-5 or so. It was recognized as &quot;an o=
fficial project&quot;, and some care has been taken to, for example, give e=
xtra weight to the old inputs. But I don&#39;t know if there is any governi=
ng process covering what is proposed.</div><div>11:04 &lt; mukti&gt; (i.e. =
bulk upvoting mabla/zabna)</div><div>11:05 &lt; gleki&gt; durka42: mukti si=
nce Robin approved new zabna/mabla definitions I suggesttht you indeed ad 2=
0 000 upvotes. It&#39;s rather a technical problem.</div><div>11:05 &lt; Il=
men&gt; ie</div><div>11:05 &lt; mukti&gt; Which is not to say that the moti=
on is unwelcome. Just that I&#39;m not aware of a governing rule covering t=
his case.</div><div>11:05 &lt; durka42&gt; je&#39;e</div><div>11:05 &lt; gl=
eki&gt; if you are not then who is aware?</div><div>11:05 &lt; mungojelly&g=
t; This is hardly a new motion anyway. This is finally bothering to inform =
people of the decision we made many years ago.</div><div>11:05 &lt; gleki&g=
t; Robin isn&#39;t, I am not, then who?</div><div>11:06 &lt; mukti&gt; I=
9;m saying this hoping that those with longer institutional memories presen=
t may be able to correct me. ;)</div><div>11:06 &lt; durka42&gt; it&#39;s 2=
PM (veti&#39;u mi). we have some BPFK cliffhangers. should we talk about a =
time for next session, or do that by email?</div><div>11:06 &lt; Ilmen&gt; =
Yeah, I&#39;m going to go to eat pretty soon</div><div>11:06 &lt; durka42&g=
t; mi ca ca&#39;o citka</div><div>11:07 &lt; gleki&gt; indeed, I&#39;m leav=
ing.</div><div>11:07 &lt; gleki&gt; i co&#39;o</div><div>11:07 &lt; Fauve&g=
t; coi la Ilmen</div><div>11:07 &lt; selpahi&gt; co&#39;o</div><div>11:07 &=
lt; Ilmen&gt; co&#39;o di&#39;ai gy</div><div>11:07 &lt; mukti&gt; co&#39;o=
 la gleki</div><div>11:07 &lt; lojbab&gt; mukti: your summary of the status=
 of jvovlaste seems correct..=C2=A0 I never use it, =C2=A0I only know how t=
o use real dictionaries.</div><div>11:07 &lt; Ilmen&gt; coi la cilce</div><=
div>11:07 &lt; durka42&gt; gleki: are you going to format and post the log?=
</div><div>11:07 &lt; noras&gt; It&#39;s harder to keep up with on e-mail b=
ecause it&#39;s interspersed with other things.=C2=A0 Here, it&#39;s more d=
irected, so I&#39;d prefer another session, I guess.</div><div>11:07 &lt; F=
auve&gt; Ilmen: are you speaking french?</div><div>11:07 &lt; Ilmen&gt; Je =
parle fran=C3=A7ais.</div><div>11:07 &lt; mukti&gt; lojbab: ta&#39;o have y=
ou seen vlasisku? You might find it easier to use: <a href=3D"http://vlasis=
ku.lojban.org/">http://vlasisku.lojban.org/</a></div><div>11:08 &lt; mukti&=
gt; (or maybe not ... but I do!)</div><div>11:08 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab=
: la jbovlaste is rather unfortunately quirky, but i don&#39;t know anyone =
who speaks lojban who&#39;s not forced to use it to learn what words mean.<=
/div><div>11:08 &lt; selpahi&gt; I can&#39;t believe people still search th=
rough jbovlaste instead of vlasisku, it&#39;s so painful</div><div>11:08 &l=
t; lojbab&gt; OK on ending the session,.=C2=A0 Proposals for the next sessi=
on can be made on the members list as a point of privilege</div><div>11:08 =
&lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: you assert often that you&#39;re bad at learnin=
g languages. that&#39;s not just inherent to your identity, it consists of =
something, it results from your actions. for instance refusing to use the m=
ain lojban dictionary would result in it being difficult to learn lojban.</=
div><div>11:09 &lt; durka42&gt; thanks everyone who made time for the real-=
time session</div><div>11:09 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: lojban is a relati=
vely easy language, with relatively little history still. with your existin=
g knowledge you should be able to become fluent in just a few months of ded=
icated study if you bothered.</div><div>11:09 &lt; lojbab&gt; mukti =C2=A0I=
 mean an offline text file.=C2=A0 I read text, I don&#39;t use apps.=C2=A0 =
My mindset doesn&#39;t yet relate to apps, because I don&#39;t use a smart =
phone.</div><div>11:09 &lt; cirko&gt; noras: if I can ask, how does your us=
e of mabla/zabna look? &quot;zo fuck mabla lo nu gletu&quot;? &quot;lo ka g=
asnu lo kalsa cu mabla lo (su&#39;u)? idmigrante&quot;? something else?</di=
v><div>11:09 &lt; durka42&gt; (including those who already left)</div><div>=
11:09 &lt; mukti&gt; ie very exciting to discuss these issues with so many =
people around the globe. I look forward to the continuation on the mriste a=
nd the next irc session.</div><div>11:10 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: please=
 answer my email? english is fine, i speak english. please send me a mailin=
g address and i&#39;ll write to you in lojban on paper?</div><div>11:11 &lt=
; mungojelly&gt; i can understand not wanting to be staring at screens all =
the time. i&#39;m looking forward to reading my first lojban book on paper =
sometime.</div><div>11:11 &lt; noras&gt; cirko: As stated in CLL, it&#39;s =
a derogatory version of the word; not necessarily cursing.=C2=A0 Example be=
ing &quot;shit&quot; as a form of feces as opposed to &quot;fertilizer&quot=
; as the zan...</div><div>11:11 &lt; mukti&gt; lojbab: Some years ago, Robi=
n added a feature to jbovlaste to produce a printable dictionary. In case t=
hat interest you: <a href=3D"http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/export/latex-expor=
t.html?lang=3Den">http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/export/latex-export.html?lang=
=3Den</a></div><div>11:11 &lt; selpahi&gt; mungojelly: I have three physica=
l Lojban books!</div><div>11:12 &lt; mungojelly&gt; noras: yes but &quot;it=
&quot; is the word produced by adding the mal- rafsi, not the x1, the x1 is=
n&#39;t a &quot;derogatory sense,&quot; it&#39;s the thing being derided</d=
iv><div>11:12 &lt; mungojelly&gt; selpahi: oh cool, what are they??</div><d=
iv>11:12 &lt; mukti&gt; Aren&#39;t there physical copies of Michael Helmsen=
&#39;s first book?</div><div>11:12 &lt; mungojelly&gt; mukti: ziryroi? even=
 i don&#39;t read mijyjbo :/</div><div>11:13 &lt; selpahi&gt; mungojelly: I=
 made them all by myself with print on demand, they are: The Little Prince,=
 Alice in Wonderland and Lo nu binxo (all by xorxes li&#39;a)</div><div>11:=
13 &lt; mukti&gt; Yeah, {ziryroi}</div><div>11:13 &lt; lojbab&gt; mungojell=
y: you are correct that :bad at learning languages&quot; is not an identity=
 thing.=C2=A0 It is a practical observation, =C2=A0Better example.=C2=A0 I =
learned Russian before adopting two kids from Russia.=C2=A0 I went to Russi=
a and was less than passable at conversing with adults, ...</div><div>11:13=
 &lt; mukti&gt; s/Helmsen/Helsem/</div><div>11:14 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojba=
b: i&#39;ve never successfully learned a natlang other than English, but i =
really don&#39;t think Lojban is comparably difficult.</div><div>11:14 &lt;=
 mukti&gt; Yes, I see that it was advertised in JL15 with &quot;an artistic=
ally decorated cover&quot;</div><div>11:14 &lt; lojbab&gt; though I was abl=
e to communicate adequate;y with the kids.=C2=A0 The kids took more than a =
year to learn English, so for most of a year, Russian was a primary languag=
e at home.</div><div>11:14 &lt; mungojelly&gt; what selpahi has been compla=
ining about the continuing lack of vocabulary, it&#39;s true to some extent=
, i mean compared to like, hey, russian, sure, quite a small vocab still</d=
iv><div>11:15 &lt; mungojelly&gt; which makes it easier if you&#39;re tryin=
g to catch up</div><div>11:15 &lt; selpahi&gt; mungojelly: Yes, because I w=
ant Lojban to stand on equal footing. Of course Lojban has a huge vocab for=
 a conlang</div><div>11:15 &lt; lojbab&gt; I never became more skilled in R=
ussian in all that time, and never could sustain fluent conversation with a=
n adult.</div><div>11:15 &lt; Ilmen&gt; Thank you everyone for this interes=
ting session of discussion :)</div><div>11:15 &lt; durka42&gt; ge&#39;i lo =
makcu cu rusko cusku frica lo verba gi la .lojbab. cu jdika lo ni rusybau c=
ertu</div><div>11:16 &lt; lojbab&gt; My results with Lojban have been simil=
ar.=C2=A0 I still think in English and translate to Lojban in my head.=C2=
=A0 This is slow and very nonfluent.=C2=A0 If you send me a letter in Lojba=
n, I will be translating it word for word to Engliah. Because that is all I=
 know how to do,.</div><div>11:17 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: i was thinkin=
g in english all the way up until, i guess it was three days ago. i still s=
lip into it sometimes.</div><div>11:17 &lt; Ilmen&gt; As for me, when I&#39=
;m writting in Lojban, I do not make any translation in my mind</div><div>1=
1:17 &lt; selpahi&gt; Me neither</div><div>11:17 &lt; Ilmen&gt; I produce L=
ojban sentences directly</div><div>11:17 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: it doe=
s take years of serious practice to get to like a completely natural fluenc=
y, but it doesn&#39;t take that much to get to the point where you can hold=
 a simple conversation</div><div>11:17 &lt; lojbab&gt; Yeah, I think we sti=
ll have a dozen copies of ziryroi.</div><div>11:18 &lt; durka42&gt; la ziry=
roi cu mo .a&#39;u</div><div>11:18 &lt; lojbab&gt; My problem hasn&#39;t be=
en lack of vocabulary.=C2=A0 It is being stuck in word for word translation=
 mode.</div><div>11:19 &lt; sezycei&gt; I&#39;m hoping to get to the point =
where I&#39;m fluent enough that I can think in Lojban without difficulty. =
I realize it&#39;ll be years, but I feel like it&#39;ll be worth it.</div><=
div>11:19 &lt; mensi&gt; sezycei: cu&#39;u la&#39;o <a href=3D"http://gy.gl=
eki.gy">gy.gleki.gy</a>.: <a href=3D"http://mw.lojban.org/lmw/Special:WikiF=
orum">http://mw.lojban.org/lmw/Special:WikiForum</a> if u need a forum | 20=
15-01-17T06:03:35.</div><div>11:19 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: if you let m=
e write you a letter in lojban i&#39;m not going to write the most advanced=
 things i use, i&#39;m going to write like &quot;mi gleki lo nu tavla do fo=
 la .lojban.&quot;</div><div>11:19 &lt; mensi&gt; 190Z</div><div>11:19 &lt;=
 xorxes&gt; durka42: pemci cukta</div><div>11:19 &lt; selpahi&gt; Here are =
two photos of my books: <a href=3D"http://selpahi.weebly.com/uploads/8/6/0/=
8/860862/7672802_orig.jpg">http://selpahi.weebly.com/uploads/8/6/0/8/860862=
/7672802_orig.jpg</a> =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"http://selpahi.weebly.com/upl=
oads/8/6/0/8/860862/6160178_orig.jpg">http://selpahi.weebly.com/uploads/8/6=
/0/8/860862/6160178_orig.jpg</a></div><div>11:19 &lt; durka42&gt; ua</div><=
div>11:19 &lt; selpahi&gt; sezycei: I doesn&#39;t have to be years</div><di=
v>11:19 &lt; durka42&gt; selpahi: ma prina minde kagni pi&#39;o do</div><di=
v>11:19 &lt; Ilmen&gt; melbi</div><div>11:19 &lt; selpahi&gt; su&#39;o dotc=
o</div><div>11:20 &lt; durka42&gt; je&#39;e</div><div>11:20 &lt; sezycei&gt=
; mensi: doi gleki I&#39;ve used all sorts of different forums before, and =
that one is not in the least way very easy to navigate. I was meaning very =
literally a PHPBB3 forum or something - something that a lot of people are =
familiar with.</div><div>11:20 &lt; mensi&gt; sezycei: mi ba benji di&#39;u=
 ba lo nu la&#39;o <a href=3D"http://gy.gleki.gy">gy.gleki.gy</a>. di&#39;a=
 cusku da</div><div>11:20 &lt; mungojelly&gt; selpahi: sezycei: yeah depend=
s on how intensive your study is. if you stopped speaking a word of english=
 right now and just started trying to muddle through in lojban and did noth=
ing else you&#39;d be competent in a week and fluent in two months, serious=
ly.</div><div>11:20 &lt; selpahi&gt; la&#39;a la&#39;oi viaprinto</div><div=
>11:21 &lt; sezycei&gt; mungojelly, but nobody (who has any form of a life)=
 can seriously do that.</div><div>11:21 &lt; mungojelly&gt; selpahi: it&#39=
;s been really interesting getting back to lojban after a while away and se=
eing how seriously you&#39;ve been studying it</div><div>11:21 &lt; selpahi=
&gt; mungojelly: If there was all the vocab of natural languages, then yes.=
</div><div>11:21 &lt; selpahi&gt; Right now a lot of the time you could spe=
nd speaking is spent making words instead</div><div>11:21 &lt; mungojelly&g=
t; sezycei: yeah, but it&#39;s sorta a reductio ad absurdum i guess is what=
 i mean. you can&#39;t learn lojban very quickly, but it&#39;s not really l=
ojban&#39;s fault, it&#39;s that you&#39;ve got other shit to do. :D</div><=
div>11:21 &lt; selpahi&gt; that slows us down a lot</div><div>11:21 &lt; Il=
men&gt; sezycei: there&#39;s also <a href=3D"http://lojban.freeforums.net/"=
>http://lojban.freeforums.net/</a></div><div>11:21 &lt; mungojelly&gt; selp=
ahi: nah, you can improvise and me&#39;oi your way through almost anything,=
 come on</div><div>11:21 &lt; sezycei&gt; Ilmen, that&#39;s great!</div><di=
v>11:22 &lt; lojbab&gt; We held simple conversations in weekly sessions bac=
k in the early and mid-90s.=C2=A0 But I never got any more fluent (I almost=
 never needed a dictionary back then/ LogFlash worked very well.=C2=A0 Even=
 now I can often read Lojban without a dictionary, but it is very slow ...<=
/div><div>11:22 &lt; sezycei&gt; Now someone needs to just make that a whol=
e lot less ugly and people actually need to make use of it. Haha</div><div>=
11:22 &lt; lojbab&gt; and mostly I get hung up on cmavo that others use, th=
at I never really mastered.</div><div>11:22 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: yea=
h lojban is certainly overwhelming with the cmavo at first. i&#39;ve been r=
elieved to get to the point where i&#39;m mostly only learning newly invent=
ed cmavo.</div><div>11:23 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: there&#39;s no way ou=
t but through, though. you can&#39;t carefully study it from the outside un=
til finally you jump in as a fluent speaker all at once. you learn by doing=
 it.</div><div>11:23 &lt; sezycei&gt; Also, giving it a subdomain/directory=
 on <a href=3D"http://lojban.org">lojban.org</a> would be a really good ide=
a, Ilmen.</div><div>11:23 &lt; noras&gt; In addition, I&#39;ve lost a lot o=
f my knowledge of rafsi, so it&#39;s hard to pick up on short-form words wi=
thout lookup (which breaks the flow)</div><div>11:23 &lt; Ilmen&gt; lojbab:=
 By the way, we&#39;ve hold many real-time spoken chats in Lojban in the pa=
st few weeks</div><div>11:24 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: noras: my husband =
(la ckiku) and i have been starting to speak to each other recently</div><d=
iv>11:24 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: noras: and whenever i ask whether ther=
e have been other couples who&#39;ve spoken lojban, you two are who&#39;s m=
entioned</div><div>11:24 &lt; lojbab&gt; durka: ziryroi was the first print=
ed Lojban book.=C2=A0 Poetry.=C2=A0 Not generally grammatical or probably e=
ven good Lojban by any standard.=C2=A0 I never could read it because it was=
n&#39;t standard.</div><div>11:24 &lt; sezycei&gt; My girlfriend and I are =
also beginning to. I&#39;m just trying to get her past the &quot;weirdness&=
quot; of it (like saying things like {mi prami do} and whatnot to eachother=
).</div><div>11:25 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: noras: so i&#39;m desperatel=
y curious, since you&#39;ve pioneered supposedly this thing i&#39;m trying =
to do, how did it go? how&#39;s it going? what should i know?</div><div>11:=
25 &lt; sezycei&gt; I&#39;m wondering the same thing as mungojelly.</div><d=
iv>11:25 &lt; mungojelly&gt; i guess it&#39;s pretty different because i=
9;m pretty fluent and i&#39;m teaching la ckiku who&#39;s a nintadni</div><=
div>11:25 &lt; Ilmen&gt; (nintadni =3D beginner)</div><div>11:26 &lt; noras=
&gt; Thanks, Ilmen, I actually did catch that lujvo meaning</div><div>11:26=
 &lt; Ilmen&gt; je&#39;e</div><div>11:26 &lt; mungojelly&gt; sezycei: &quot=
;mi prami do&quot; feels a little stilted to me to actually say to la ckiku=
, but i say to him &quot;.iu cai&quot;, yesterday i called him &quot;dirba&=
quot; for the first time, that&#39;s a good spouse-talking word :D</div><di=
v>11:27 &lt; sezycei&gt; la ckiku - {la} makes ckiku a name, right?</div><d=
iv>11:27 &lt; durka42&gt; yes</div><div>11:27 &lt; mukti&gt; My biggest cha=
llenge in lojban at this point is still lujvo. I&#39;m slow to recognize so=
me rafsi, misrecognize others, and am generally unaware of non-jvajvo parti=
cularities. I have, however, made little effort to address these problems.<=
/div><div>11:27 &lt; sezycei&gt; So your husband&#39;s chosen name is {ckik=
u}</div><div>11:27 &lt; mungojelly&gt; sezycei: yeah, he was named before m=
e actually, he&#39;s I X Key so ckiku key</div><div>11:27 &lt; sezycei&gt; =
&quot;The Key&quot;</div><div>11:27 &lt; sezycei&gt; Ahhh</div><div>11:27 &=
lt; mungojelly&gt; mukti: you sound like you need to play the rolrafcreselk=
ei :D</div><div>11:27 &lt; sezycei&gt; That sounds awfully inappropriate.</=
div><div>11:28 &lt; sezycei&gt; &quot;A curiosity hangs by the thigh of a m=
an, under its master&#39;s cloak. It is pierced through in the front; it is=
 stiff and hard and it has a good standing-place. When the man pulls up his=
 own robe above his knee, he means to poke with the head of his hanging thi=
ng that familiar hole of matching length which he has often filled before.&=
quot;</div><div>11:28 &lt; mukti&gt; mungojelly: I&#39;m sure I could benef=
it from that, yeah</div><div>11:28 &lt; sezycei&gt; That&#39;s why &quot;Ke=
y&quot; sounds awfully inappropriate as a name. Hahaha. Because the answer =
to that riddle is &quot;key&quot;.</div><div>11:28 &lt; lojbab&gt; Ilmen: p=
resumably spoken chats means Skype.=C2=A0 No idea how to do that.=C2=A0 No =
microphone on my machine that I know of, either.</div><div>11:28 &lt; durka=
42&gt; argh</div><div>11:28 &lt; durka42&gt; he was just trying to tell you=
 that we do it</div><div>11:28 &lt; sezycei&gt; lojbab, I think they spoke =
on Mumble, actually.</div><div>11:29 &lt; durka42&gt; the response to &quot=
;X happens&quot; doesn&#39;t always have to be &quot;I don&#39;t know how t=
o X&quot;</div><div>11:29 &lt; durka42&gt; no offense meant</div><div>11:29=
 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: don&#39;t you have a regular phone, though? i =
don&#39;t understand why lojbanists have never talked on the phone. have we=
? have you?</div><div>11:29 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: i thought maybe the=
 habit of not talking on the phone just went all the way back to when long =
distance cost extra, and we&#39;ve just never changed it</div><div>11:29 &l=
t; selpahi&gt; sezycei: What are you using to learn Lojban at the moment?</=
div><div>11:30 &lt; Ilmen&gt; lojbab: well we&#39;ve been using Mumble, not=
 Skype. I just wanted to let you know that Lojban has reached the stage whe=
re people can actually maintain spoken discussions in it during more than o=
ne hour :)</div><div>11:30 &lt; noras&gt; Just how often do people have to =
&quot;learn&quot; lojban?</div><div>11:30 &lt; mungojelly&gt; yeah, the age=
 of spoken lojban is beginning, this is the time</div><div>11:30 &lt; sezyc=
ei&gt; selpahi, the Wave Lessons. I&#39;ve got to go right now, though. I w=
ill be back in a couple hours. co&#39;o ro do</div><div>11:30 &lt; lojbab&g=
t; mungojelly: We were the first couple who spoke Lojban.=C2=A0 Our wedding=
 vows were in preliminary Lojban in 1987, and we spoke it for a couple of h=
ours on the honeymoon, each of us with maybe 300 words of vocabulary (diffe=
rent words for each of us, ...</div><div>11:31 &lt; selpahi&gt; mi nelci la=
 sezycei</div><div>11:31 &lt; noras&gt; Umm... Yesour long distance costs e=
xtra - still</div><div>11:31 &lt; lojbab&gt; so much of the conversation wa=
s explaining the words we were using,</div><div>11:31 &lt; mungojelly&gt; n=
oras: if you come back from a few months away, you usually have to pick up =
just a few new cmavo and a few new lujvo.</div><div>11:31 &lt; mukti&gt; ie=
 caicni fi lo jbobau</div><div>11:32 &lt; lojbab&gt; Using Lojban to do som=
ething other than talk about Lojban has generally been difficult.=C2=A0 Lac=
k of commitment to spend the time.</div><div>11:32 &lt; lojbab&gt; I</div><=
div>11:32 &lt; noras&gt; mungojelly: and where do you pick them up from?</d=
iv><div>11:32 &lt; Ilmen&gt; lojbab: I&#39;m glad you and nora honored us o=
f you presence. :)</div><div>11:32 &lt; Ilmen&gt; I&#39;ve gotta take my le=
ave. Goodbye everyone.</div><div>11:32 &lt; mungojelly&gt; noras: here. loj=
ban as a spoken language was born right here.</div><div>11:32 &lt; selpahi&=
gt; Bye Ilmen</div><div>11:32 &lt; mukti&gt; co&#39;o la .Ilmen.</div><div>=
11:32 &lt; Ilmen&gt; co&#39;o</div><div>11:32 &lt; lojbab&gt; My long term =
project was and remains translation of part of Burton&#39;s Arabian Nights,=
 which I did a few pages of more than 20 years ago,</div><div>11:33 &lt; mu=
ngojelly&gt; noras: there&#39;s also other fora now. twitter is picking up,=
 more people are &quot;tu&#39;itsku&quot; (posting to twitter) as we&#39;ve=
 been saying, &quot;tu&#39;itsku&quot; was one of the new words i had to le=
arn recently. :)</div><div>11:33 &lt; mukti&gt; lojbab: Have you published =
any of your progress?</div><div>11:33 &lt; noras&gt; zo&#39;o lojban as a &=
quot;spoken&quot; language - here on IRC.=C2=A0 I&#39;m &quot;speaking&quot=
; now?</div><div>11:33 &lt; mungojelly&gt; noras: well, before that it was =
just a literary language, just translations. it&#39;s finally making the tr=
ansition to being spoken out loud just right around now.</div><div>11:34 &l=
t; mungojelly&gt; noras: but for a while the main way it was spoken was her=
e in text. slowing it down to the speed of text made it so more people coul=
d be included, i guess. there wasn&#39;t enough people at a level to speak =
out loud before now.</div><div>11:35 &lt; durka42&gt; I don&#39;t see IRC a=
s very slow, .u&#39;i</div><div>11:35 &lt; selpahi&gt; We speak (write) ver=
y quickly</div><div>11:35 &lt; noras&gt; No twitter.=C2=A0 No cell phone.</=
div><div>11:35 &lt; mungojelly&gt; durka42: well, slow as in, if someone=
9;s typing at a slightly different speed, or looking up words, they&#39;re =
not just lost</div><div>11:35 &lt; mungojelly&gt; noras: they&#39;re widely=
 available, you know?</div><div>11:36 &lt; durka42&gt; mungojelly: right. t=
ext is not ephemeral as speech is, so you can look stuff up</div><div>11:36=
 &lt; mungojelly&gt; the company i use is $100 up front for a phone but the=
n the monthly plans go down to $5. there&#39;s another company called scrat=
ch wireless where they have $0/month plans.</div><div>11:36 &lt; lojbab&gt;=
 durka: You are correct that it doesn&#39;t have to be &quot;I don&#39;t kn=
ow how&quot;.=C2=A0 But I am now in my 60s and learning new stuff is harder=
 than it used to be, =C2=A0And I find it harder to be motivated to learn th=
ings.=C2=A0 Not that I can&#39;t, but it just never seems to happen.</div><=
div>11:37 &lt; mungojelly&gt; ok but if you don&#39;t care about lojban--?<=
/div><div>11:37 &lt; mungojelly&gt; i can understand, hey, i don&#39;t care=
 about lojban, not that interested any more. lots of people have gone.</div=
><div>11:37 &lt; lojbab&gt; mumble ki&#39;a</div><div>11:37 &lt; mungojelly=
&gt; but here you are, telling us in #lojban that you&#39;re not interested=
? doesn&#39;t add up :p</div><div>11:37 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: na lujv=
o</div><div>11:38 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: mumble is a voice chat progra=
m</div><div>11:38 &lt; mungojelly&gt; mumble kinda sucks and it&#39;s kinda=
 awesome. it&#39;s not really meant for chatting in lojban, i feel like. it=
&#39;s meant for first person shooter team coordination. i have no idea if =
it&#39;s good for that. it has special tools for sharing where you are on t=
he game map or something.</div><div>11:39 &lt; mungojelly&gt; but for whate=
ver reason it&#39;s what we started using years ago to have voice chats. bu=
t there wasn&#39;t the critical mass to get them together very often.</div>=
<div>11:39 &lt; selpahi&gt; Mumble is fine.</div><div>11:39 &lt; mukti&gt; =
It&#39;s fired me up to listen to the Mumble sessions. I&#39;m going to hav=
e to get my courage up to join in.</div><div>11:39 &lt; lojbab&gt; mungojel=
ly: we have had a couple of Lojban conversations on the telephone, again ba=
ck in the 90s.=C2=A0 We used to do it every year at LogFest - telephoning N=
ick Nicolas in Australia, and once we called xorxes in Argentina.=C2=A0 I w=
as probably at that time</div><div>11:40 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: noras:=
 you don&#39;t pay for outgoing long distance do you? we could arrange time=
s for people to call you.</div><div>11:40 &lt; lojbab&gt; the most fluent L=
Ojbanist other than those two.</div><div>11:40 &lt; durka42&gt; or the most=
 fluent LEjbanist, amirite</div><div>11:40 &lt; durka42&gt; zo&#39;o</div><=
div>11:41 &lt; mungojelly&gt; from my perspective as a speaker of Lojban, t=
his &quot;official&quot; &quot;meeting&quot; stuff doesn&#39;t matter much =
to me. it&#39;s not like i have to speak the way y&#39;all write down, or e=
ven teach it to nintadni.</div><div>11:41 &lt; mungojelly&gt; but a couple =
new speakers of the language, htat&#39;d be huge.</div><div>11:41 &lt; mung=
ojelly&gt; and you already have an intimate knowledge of the grammar and a =
basic vocabulary.</div><div>11:41 &lt; lojbab&gt; mukti: I think I posted w=
hat I had once to the list, when I rediscovered it after many years.</div><=
div>11:42 =C2=A0* selpahi finds out how many words the English text has</di=
v><div>11:42 &lt; mungojelly&gt; if you started speaking lojban it&#39;d be=
 important not just in terms of your practical contributions, though those =
would be important too, it would be important emotionally i feel like</div>=
<div>11:42 &lt; mukti&gt; lojban: I&#39;d love to read it if you rediscover=
 it.</div><div>11:42 &lt; mungojelly&gt; that&#39;d really be the beginning=
 of a new age, where lojban really becomes the language of our community</d=
iv><div>11:43 &lt; mukti&gt; Oh, also: If the source code for the gismu gen=
erator resurface, I&#39;m still very much interested in that.</div><div>11:=
43 &lt; mungojelly&gt; i think we can make lojban the language our communit=
y shares, and i think we can do it without fracturing the community, but to=
 do that we have to teach you lojban. it&#39;s an easy language, nu&#39;e</=
div><div>11:44 &lt; mukti&gt; mungojelly: It makes sense to me that the mor=
e lojban is used, the more the language itself will act as a centripetal fo=
rce</div><div>11:45 &lt; mungojelly&gt; well we&#39;re already to the point=
 where not all lojban speakers are competent in english. we&#39;re already =
there.</div><div>11:45 &lt; selpahi&gt; It has =C2=A0250830 words</div><div=
>11:45 &lt; selpahi&gt; Very long</div><div>11:45 &lt; mungojelly&gt; i hav=
e emails in my inbox to respond to from lojbanists complaining, in lojban, =
that they don&#39;t speak english, so why are the definitions of new words =
for instance only in english? fair question, no?</div><div>11:46 &lt; mukti=
&gt; Also, I think it will calm some worries about some differences among s=
peakers, since they will appear as differences of style rather than threats=
 to a definitive representation of the language</div><div>11:46 &lt; selpah=
i&gt; Yes, fair question</div><div>11:46 &lt; lojbab&gt; mungojelly, I unde=
rstand the official meeting stuff is not important to you.=C2=A0 But that i=
s what I was doing all those years while others started learning the langua=
ge, and it led eventually to CLL. And I was not able to shed the responsibi=
lity until Robin took on</div><div>11:46 &lt; selpahi&gt; Maybe if you coul=
d upload pictures to jbovlaste....</div><div>11:46 &lt; mungojelly&gt; all =
the way up until right this moment, we have been a community whose lingua f=
ranca is english. we&#39;ve discussed in english a theoretical other langua=
ge lojban.</div><div>11:46 &lt;@rlpowell&gt; lojbab: Hi.</div><div>11:47 &l=
t; mukti&gt; coi la camgusmis</div><div>11:47 &lt; noras&gt; .ui co&#39;i d=
oi robyn.</div><div>11:47 &lt; mungojelly&gt; .ui .i&#39;i coi la .camgusmi=
s. .io sai</div><div>11:47 &lt; lojbab&gt; much of it in 2002. =C2=A0coi ca=
mgusmis.</div><div>11:47 &lt; mungojelly&gt; .i la .camgusmis. pa moi lo=
9;i jbopli je&#39;u .io</div><div>11:47 &lt;@rlpowell&gt; mi milxe lo ka bi=
lma</div><div>11:47 &lt; mungojelly&gt; .uu</div><div>11:47 &lt;@rlpowell&g=
t; .i ji&#39;a mi nitcu co kurji ky .i la&#39;a mi na mutce jundi</div><div=
>11:48 &lt; mungojelly&gt; ko ky. kurji</div><div>11:48 &lt; noras&gt; co&#=
39;i si coi</div><div>11:48 &lt; lojbab&gt; mukti, I have it.=C2=A0 I may r=
epost it after looking at it.</div><div>11:48 &lt; mukti&gt; ui sai</div><d=
iv>11:48 &lt; mungojelly&gt; .i ko cusku lu coi jbojbe li&#39;u ky. se vau =
mi doi la .camgusmis.</div><div>11:48 &lt; selpahi&gt; lo nu penmi cu mulno=
</div><div>11:49 &lt; mungojelly&gt; i mean it&#39;s an awkward thing. you =
can&#39;t START discussing making lojban in lojban. so naturally it was in =
some other language. and so then necessarily there&#39;s an awkward transit=
ion point.</div><div>11:49 &lt; durka42&gt; coi rlpowell</div><div>11:50 &l=
t; mungojelly&gt; the thing is, it&#39;s gotten so awkward, it&#39;s so pas=
t due. it has been spoken already for a long time now, by some people. but =
we&#39;re retaining this english structure we built up, because changing la=
nguages changes the power dynamic.</div><div>11:50 &lt; lojbab&gt; mukti: t=
he random sentence generator is pretty fun for learning too.=C2=A0 It even =
sometimes makes sense, in a Zen sort of way.</div><div>11:50 &lt; mukti&gt;=
 lojbab: Maybe we can integrate it into one of the chat bots here.</div><di=
v>11:50 &lt;@rlpowell&gt; Can anyone still make it compile?</div><div>11:51=
 &lt; selpahi&gt; We used to have such a bot</div><div>11:51 &lt; mungojell=
y&gt; la mlismu xu cu terta&#39;a .i mi pu nelci la mlismu</div><div>11:51 =
&lt; selpahi&gt; lojbot</div><div>11:51 &lt; mungojelly&gt; it&#39;s weird,=
 i find it hard not to speak lojban here. i finally passed some point in my=
 mind where lojban is the easy side sometimes.</div><div>11:51 &lt; mukti&g=
t; Hmm... I see it linked as a zip. Maybe a good first step would be github=
&#39;izing it, provided the license allows.</div><div>11:52 &lt; durka42&gt=
; where&#39;s the source</div><div>11:52 &lt; durka42&gt; I&#39;m usually p=
retty good at getting stuff to compile</div><div>11:52 &lt; mukti&gt; .oi b=
roken link</div><div>11:52 &lt; durka42&gt; we could also make one using th=
e PEG</div><div>11:52 &lt; durka42&gt; and some probabilities or something<=
/div><div>11:53 &lt; xorxes&gt; wasn&#39;t it called norsmu or something li=
ke that?</div><div>11:53 &lt; selpahi&gt; That exists too</div><div>11:53 &=
lt; mukti&gt; <a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/files/software/rndsen28.zip"=
>http://www.lojban.org/files/software/rndsen28.zip</a></div><div>11:53 &lt;=
 lojbab&gt; I believe that random sentence generator is working but the wor=
d tables for each level are a little outof date.</div><div>11:54 &lt; mungo=
jelly&gt; ok so i tried to ask why we&#39;ve never used the phone. the answ=
er i&#39;m hearing is long distance charges, and it&#39;s 2015, so.. ok but=
 whatever. moving on, my next question, dare i ask? what about paper letter=
s?</div><div>11:54 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: is there any good reason loj=
banists have never sent one another paper letters? if you say the cost of p=
aper and stamps i&#39;m gonna cry :(</div><div>11:54 &lt; mungojelly&gt; i&=
#39;ll mail you a SASE :(</div><div>11:54 &lt; selpahi&gt; Hold your horses=
</div><div>11:54 &lt; mukti&gt; Hmm, that&#39;s a binary only distribution.=
</div><div>11:54 &lt; selpahi&gt; I *have* sent a paper letter</div><div>11=
:55 &lt; selpahi&gt; All the way from Germany to Canada</div><div>11:55 &lt=
; mungojelly&gt; selpahi: i&#39;ve sent a few too</div><div>11:55 &lt; selp=
ahi&gt; I know some of the French learners were thinking about sending lett=
ers to each other as well, but it seems they still thought it was too diffi=
cult for them</div><div>11:55 &lt; mungojelly&gt; selpahi: but i mean, goin=
g all the way back, why hasn&#39;t there been a culture of lojban correspon=
dance? why isn&#39;t that what&#39;s done? is it just because lojban coinci=
ded with the internet and it never seemed necessary?</div><div>11:55 &lt; s=
elpahi&gt; I think so</div><div>11:56 &lt; selpahi&gt; Email is comfortable=
, it&#39;s quick and cheap</div><div>11:56 &lt; selpahi&gt; Sure, it&#39;s =
less personal</div><div>11:56 &lt; mungojelly&gt; that almost makes sense, =
except lojbab and noras are here telling us they&#39;re not much online, so=
.. why not paper then?</div><div>11:56 &lt; mungojelly&gt; i really enjoy w=
riting paper letters</div><div>11:56 &lt; lojbab&gt; random sentence genera=
ted: fu lo vi grusi se rivbi cu te salpo go&#39;i ko vau</div><div>11:56 &l=
t; selpahi&gt; A letter is a bigger commitment. What do you write in such a=
 letter if you have nothing to talk about?</div><div>11:56 &lt; selpahi&gt;=
 It&#39;s not easy for everyone</div><div>11:56 &lt; mungojelly&gt; one thi=
ng you can do with written lojban that&#39;s hard on the internet is to lik=
e mindmap it, to write bridi as graphs</div><div>11:57 &lt; noras&gt; Paper=
 letters are fine.=C2=A0 I might lurk on IRC, too (though I&#39;ve tried th=
at unsuccessfully previously).=C2=A0 I prefer to &quot;listen&quot; for a w=
hile to catch up on the grammar and words.</div><div>11:57 &lt; mukti&gt; h=
mm... salpo5 ?</div><div>11:57 &lt; lojbab&gt; the random sentence generato=
r was converted to VB a few years ago, and hence should be usable anywhere.=
</div><div>11:57 &lt;@rlpowell&gt; mungojelly: I would expect the chevalier=
s would ejnoy paper, although of course they&#39;d have to confirm.</div><d=
iv>11:58 &lt; mungojelly&gt; rlpowell: yes i&#39;m trying that again now at=
 this late date, but what i&#39;m wondering is why that never happened befo=
re? why.. like.. why did lojbanistan have so much trouble getting in commun=
ication</div><div>11:59 &lt;@rlpowell&gt; For myself, I absolutely hate pap=
er letters.</div><div>11:59 &lt;@rlpowell&gt; Can&#39;t speak to anyone els=
e.</div><div>11:59 &lt; mungojelly&gt; rlpowell: like why have lojbanists n=
ever called one another on the phone? is it just a habit from all the way b=
ack when long distance cost money?</div><div>11:59 &lt;@rlpowell&gt; I&#39;=
ve called Bob several times.</div><div>12:00 &lt; mungojelly&gt; maybe it&#=
39;s just that it takes such an intense *habit* of communication for it to =
help as far as building a language</div><div>12:00 &lt; lojbab&gt; mungojel=
ly: not sending paper letters: The main reason I know of is that as a commu=
nity many of us have nothing to say to anyone else in particular.=C2=A0 Not=
 even in English, much less Lojban.=C2=A0 I have no idea what anyone is int=
erested in (and I make no effort to find out_)</div><div>12:00 &lt; mukti&g=
t; It&#39;s encouraging to see people meeting weekly on mumble.</div><div>1=
2:00 &lt;@rlpowell&gt; ^^ what bob said. =C2=A0this is what has torpedoed a=
ttempts at voice chat in the past.</div><div>12:00 &lt;@rlpowell&gt; mukti:=
 Are they?</div><div>12:00 &lt; selpahi&gt; Yes</div><div>12:00 &lt;@rlpowe=
ll&gt; For how many weeks now, approx?</div><div>12:00 &lt; selpahi&gt; Eve=
n between weekends</div><div>12:01 &lt; selpahi&gt; 3</div><div>12:01 &lt;@=
rlpowell&gt; *nod*</div><div>12:01 &lt; mungojelly&gt; mukti: i lurk on mum=
ble a lot more than that, if people want to start trying to come by random =
times</div><div>12:01 &lt; mukti&gt; rlpowell: <a href=3D"http://mw.lojban.=
org/lmw/Recordings_of_live_Lojban_discussions">http://mw.lojban.org/lmw/Rec=
ordings_of_live_Lojban_discussions</a></div><div>12:01 &lt; xorxes&gt; It w=
orks when we play 20 questions</div><div>12:01 &lt; lojbab&gt; ... but that=
 leaves only talking in Lojban about Lojban.=C2=A0 Which gets boring =C2=A0=
or too technical really quickly.=C2=A0 I&#39;m not a conversationalist.=C2=
=A0 A couple sentences and nothing more to say.</div><div>12:01 &lt; durka4=
2&gt; mukti: not salpo5, go&#39;i5</div><div>12:01 &lt; xorxes&gt; then the=
re&#39;s something to talk about</div><div>12:01 &lt; mungojelly&gt; rlpowe=
ll: i was just thinking today about those old conversations you had with pe=
ople on mumble or on something, story time with uncle robin</div><div>12:02=
 &lt; mungojelly&gt; rlpowell: it seemed like you were annoyed at being the=
 only person actually at a speaking competence then</div><div>12:02 &lt; se=
lpahi&gt; There were many sessions we didn&#39;t record, where we talked ab=
out whatever, it was lots of random topics like a normal conversation would=
 go</div><div>12:02 &lt; mukti&gt; durka42: I stand corrected. mabla tanru<=
/div><div>12:02 &lt;@rlpowell&gt; mungojelly: At the time that was frustrat=
ing for me, yes.</div><div>12:03 &lt; mungojelly&gt; rlpowell: it&#39;s a f=
unny situation, trying to start speaking the language, someone has to be fi=
rst, but then logically there&#39;s no one to talk to.</div><div>12:03 &lt;=
@rlpowell&gt; Heh. =C2=A0it&#39;s a good point.</div><div>12:03 &lt; mukti&=
gt; Earlier this year, when measuring primarily email threads, I was concer=
ned that lojban use was declining. I&#39;ve changed my mind.</div><div>12:0=
3 &lt; lojbab&gt; You can send email in Lojban to us just as easily as snai=
l mail.=C2=A0 Nora has generally been faster than me at getting around to r=
esponding, but she reads email less often than me (and I only read every da=
y or two myself, these days).</div><div>12:04 &lt; noras&gt; lojbab and I u=
sed to use lojban as a private language when we didn&#39;t want the kids to=
 understand.</div><div>12:04 &lt; mungojelly&gt; rlpowell: the lead people =
kept walking away from it, i felt like. like years before us, nitcion was f=
luently talking to no one, so he left. then you were talking to no one, the=
n i was talking to no one as you were off somewhere else. it&#39;s only now=
 finally that multiple people are simultaneously able to speak out loud.</d=
iv><div>12:04 &lt; durka42&gt; .ei mi co&#39;o-zei-co&#39;o</div><div>12:04=
 &lt; mungojelly&gt; noras: yeah i heard that story! i was wondering what t=
hat meant exactly. because you&#39;d just need to use a word or two to sugg=
est something, so that doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re like speaking complicate=
d lojban i figured.</div><div>12:05 &lt; selpahi&gt; Is that story about Ni=
ck accurate though? I&#39;ve also seen evidence that his involvement as BPF=
K jatna was the reason why he got sick of Lojban, and then another explanat=
ion would be that he simply had other stuff to do.</div><div>12:05 &lt; muk=
ti&gt; mi co&#39;a co&#39;o zei do doi la durkavore</div><div>12:05 &lt; mu=
ngojelly&gt; rlpowell: or actulaly now that i think about it maybe when i w=
as getting to speaking fluency i just wasn&#39;t able to socialize with you=
 much because of la mabla, sorry about that</div><div>12:05 &lt; durka42&gt=
; donco&#39;o</div><div>12:05 &lt; durka42&gt; dondi&#39;ai</div><div>12:06=
 &lt; mungojelly&gt; selpahi: i have no idea, that was just my guess. i&#39=
;ve just heard a few things with nick talking lojban, and it&#39;s like, wh=
oa, wait, he was pretty good at it. and there was nobody else then. so it j=
ust makes sense, it makes sense you&#39;d walk away.</div><div>12:06 &lt; m=
ungojelly&gt; xorxes seems to have stayed because he likes translating more=
 than because he likes us :D zo&#39;o</div><div>12:07 &lt; mungojelly&gt; s=
eriously though xorxes will talk to us if we make him but he mostly loves u=
sing the language for itself it seems. which makes sense too.</div><div>12:=
07 &lt; lojbab&gt; selpahi: you are correct =C2=A0being jatna made Nick fru=
strated and he finally quit.=C2=A0 He still di occasional Lojban work for a=
nother year or two, and visited Nora and me a couple of times.</div><div>12=
:07 &lt; noras&gt; Full sentences - things like: xu curmi le nu le bersa cu=
 jundi le nunsalci</div><div>12:07 &lt; mungojelly&gt; first someone tried =
to learn it, saw no one else was, and left. then someone learns it to trans=
late stuff into it quietly alone.</div><div>12:08 &lt; mungojelly&gt; noras=
: this is really interesting, you&#39;re actually pretty good at lojban i f=
eel like, but a different lojban than the rest of us know, i can feel it</d=
iv><div>12:08 &lt; lojbab&gt; But then he decided that he wanted to have a =
life, and Lojban dropped off his priority list.=C2=A0 He also got very angr=
y with me once, and I am not sure how much that had to do with it.=C2=A0 Ro=
bin =C2=A0continued contact with him after becoming jatna.</div><div>12:09 =
&lt; mungojelly&gt; noras: if you spoke your lojban to us more i feel like =
parts of it would flow into our speech habits and help the whole language, =
it would be enriched by those old energies</div><div>12:10 &lt; xorxes&gt; =
mungojelly: I had lots of conversations in Lojban on the mailing list, not =
necessarily about Lojban. not just translations.</div><div>12:11 &lt; xorxe=
s&gt; I remember the goran period was very prolific</div><div>12:11 &lt; mu=
ngojelly&gt; i had thought mostly about what we can teach the two of you ab=
out today&#39;s lojban, but when i hear you speak it i can feel that you ha=
ve something to teach us to, you have an interesting different pespective o=
n the language.</div><div>12:11 &lt; mungojelly&gt; xorxes: what do you mea=
n by the goran period? goran ki&#39;a?</div><div>12:11 &lt; xorxes&gt; Gora=
n was a Croatian lojbanist</div><div>12:11 &lt; selpahi&gt; Early 90s</div>=
<div>12:12 &lt; mukti&gt; <a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Goran+Topic=
">http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Goran+Topic</a></div><div>12:12 &lt; mungojell=
y&gt; oh my, so slightly before my time</div><div>12:12 &lt; noras&gt; I ha=
ve trouble with the mailing list.=C2=A0 Too many to go through, so I don=
9;t bother to take the effort to understand (especially with rafsi and cmav=
o I&#39;m not familiar with).</div><div>12:13 &lt; selpahi&gt; I know Goran=
&#39;s name because I&#39;ve read so many old threads</div><div>12:13 &lt; =
mungojelly&gt; noras: what email address do you prefer? i think for lojbab =
i have his name @<a href=3D"http://lojban.org">lojban.org</a> is there a <a=
 href=3D"mailto:noras@lojban.org">noras@lojban.org</a>?</div><div>12:13 &lt=
; mukti&gt; I have Goran as active from 1994-1999. I have you active from 1=
998, mungojelly. Maybe there was a bit of overlap?</div><div>12:13 &lt; mun=
gojelly&gt; selpahi: you&#39;ve read everything, you really studied everyth=
ing</div><div>12:14 &lt; mungojelly&gt; mukti: yeah, the name &quot;goran&q=
uot; does seem familiar, i just don&#39;t seem to recall many details</div>=
<div>12:14 &lt; noras&gt; There used to be; maybe still.=C2=A0 I use <a hre=
f=3D"mailto:noras@cox.net">noras@cox.net</a> now.=C2=A0 But I don&#39;t loo=
k every day (weekdays are too busy).=C2=A0 If you want to try and are willi=
ng to put up with delayed response, I&#39;m willing.</div><div>12:15 &lt; m=
ungojelly&gt; selpahi: one thing i thought while making all my videos is, w=
ell, maybe nobody much cares at the moment, but sometime soon someone is pr=
obably going to get obsessed with learning lojban and want as much material=
 as possible and watch through all of these, and i guess that was you</div>=
<div>12:16 &lt; mungojelly&gt; noras: i don&#39;t mind at all, i&#39;ve got=
 too many lojban emails if anything at the moment, i wrote to everyone in l=
ojbanistan in the past week or two :o</div><div>12:16 &lt; selpahi&gt; I gu=
ess :)</div><div>12:16 &lt; Ilmen&gt; coi</div><div>12:16 &lt; Ilmen&gt; ue=
 za&#39;o xu casnu</div><div>12:16 &lt; mukti&gt; go&#39;i</div><div>12:17 =
&lt; Ilmen&gt; famcau nunsnu .u&#39;e zo&#39;o</div><div>12:17 &lt; selpahi=
&gt; casnu lo vrici .i lo ba&#39;e lojbangirzu nunpenmi cu mulno</div><div>=
12:17 &lt; mungojelly&gt; noras: but i&#39;d like to write some simple lojb=
an to you as often as possible just to help you learn it. i can speak simpl=
y.</div><div>12:17 &lt; xorxes&gt; casnu lo lojbo citri</div><div>12:17 &lt=
;@rlpowell&gt; mungojelly: Nothing you need to apologize for as far as I kn=
ow.</div><div>12:17 &lt; Ilmen&gt; coi la .camgusmis.</div><div>12:17 &lt;@=
rlpowell&gt; 18-12:08 &lt; =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0lojbab&gt; But then he decid=
ed that he wanted to have a life, and Lojban dropped off his priority list.=
=C2=A0 He also got very angry with me once, and I am not sure how much that=
 had to do with it.=C2=A0 Robin =C2=A0continued contact with him after beco=
ming jatna. -- Assuming you mean Nick, I&#39;m almost certain that had noth=
ing to do with it.</div><div>12:18 &lt;@rlpowell&gt; 18-12:04 &lt; =C2=A0 =
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 noras&gt; lojbab and I used to use lojban as a private langua=
ge when we didn&#39;t want the kids to understand. -- That has worked out l=
ess well for us. =C2=A0:D</div><div>12:18 &lt; mungojelly&gt; rlpowell: oh =
well not really, it&#39;s not my fault anyway it&#39;s due to a terrible ph=
armaceutical la ckiku was taking, but it&#39;s unfortunate</div><div>12:18 =
&lt;@rlpowell&gt; *nod*</div><div>12:18 &lt; lojbab&gt; mukti: Burton Arabi=
an Nights beginning has now been posted to Lojban List.=C2=A0 It may be use=
 obsolete vocabulary, since I originally did the work before 1994 (and don&=
#39;t remember whether I fixed the thing for ralfso changes)</div><div>12:1=
8 &lt; mungojelly&gt; rlpowell: when you said you were raising some jbojbe,=
 i was really excited! i wanted so much to help out anyway i could</div><di=
v>12:19 &lt; lojbab&gt; rafsi</div><div>12:19 &lt; mungojelly&gt; rlpowell:=
 but i couldn&#39;t really help much at all because of la mabla. :(</div><d=
iv>12:19 &lt; mungojelly&gt; rlpowell: i thought at first like, yay, ok, we=
ll i&#39;ll help by making kids videos and stories or something. but really=
 then there was nothing much i could do.</div><div>12:20 &lt; mungojelly&gt=
; rlpowell: if there&#39;s anything i could do to help now though i&#39;m b=
ack to being able to do stuff. la ckiku took the last of that evil weird st=
uff at the beginning of october, so as you can see i&#39;ve been back to lo=
jban stuff since then.</div><div>12:21 &lt; mukti&gt; ki&#39;e la lojbab .i=
 cinri mutce</div><div>12:21 &lt; mungojelly&gt; .ie .i&#39;i .i&#39;o cai<=
/div><div>12:23 &lt; mungojelly&gt; i think that&#39;s modern rafsi, at lea=
st i understood all the lujvo i saw skimming it</div><div>12:23 &lt; lojbab=
&gt; mungojelly: if you cc me on stuff you send Nora, I can tell her when o=
ne arrives.=C2=A0 And maybe I&#39;ll answer too (no promises - my shoulder =
is going to be dead after all this typing. =C2=A0rehab has been slow).</div=
><div>12:23 &lt; mungojelly&gt; zo zancevni .i&#39;e</div><div>12:24 &lt; s=
elpahi&gt; Yep, looks like new rafsi</div><div>12:24 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lo=
jbab: .uu, someone said something to me about your being injured :(</div><d=
iv>12:25 &lt; mungojelly&gt; i thought &quot;zancei&quot; to myself yesterd=
ay, i just remembered. i think it was zancei. i looked at a nice tapestry w=
e have of laxmi and i was thinking of her as a &quot;te latna&quot; in a ki=
nda silly way</div><div>12:26 &lt; mungojelly&gt; and then i thought of som=
e lujvo with -cei, i think zancei, in a much more serious mood</div><div>12=
:27 &lt; Ilmen&gt; zo laxmi ki&#39;a</div><div>12:27 &lt; mungojelly&gt; la=
 .laxmis. zancei</div><div>12:28 &lt; Ilmen&gt; cevni ma ma</div><div>12:28=
 &lt; mungojelly&gt; .i mamta la .ganec. .iu ka&#39;u</div><div>12:28 &lt; =
mungojelly&gt; .i la .laxmis. cevni lo xindo ro fetsi ckaji .a ro da</div><=
div>12:29 &lt; Ilmen&gt; je&#39;e</div><div>12:29 &lt;@rlpowell&gt; 18-12:1=
9 &lt; =C2=A0mungojelly&gt; rlpowell: but i couldn&#39;t really help much a=
t all because of la mabla. :( -- ;(</div><div>12:29 &lt; mungojelly&gt; oh =
hey idk if we should get into complicated philosophical conversations in lo=
jban though, we were englishing, happy to continue that conversation on #jb=
osnu sometime Ilmen :)</div><div>12:29 &lt; Ilmen&gt; je&#39;e .u&#39;i</di=
v><div>12:30 &lt; Ilmen&gt; Do you want me to copy all the session&#39;s lo=
gs to the LLG list?</div><div>12:31 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: noras: just=
 catching you up. names have pauses on both sides now, and -la- and -doi- a=
re allowed in names. we tried to never have -doi- in names, and we failed, =
so we had to change the rule rather than hate ourselves forever for not bei=
ng able to do it. ;)</div><div>12:31 &lt; xorxes&gt; Ilmen: it might be hel=
pful for the people who weren&quot;t here</div><div>12:32 &lt; Ilmen&gt; je=
&#39;e xy</div><div>12:33 &lt; mungojelly&gt; i love the pauses on both sid=
es of names. the real reason for it is to make it parse, but i don&#39;t th=
ink of it that way exactly, i always think of the aesthetics of it.</div><d=
iv>12:33 &lt; xorxes&gt; la was probably much more of a problem than doi, i=
t&#39;s a very common syllable</div><div>12:33 &lt; mungojelly&gt; to me it=
&#39;s like the . . around the name is its little space to be in, it&#39;s =
like, hey, check it out, here&#39;s a cmevla, floating in space</div><div>1=
2:35 &lt; mungojelly&gt; so i say it with its own little space in the tone =
of how i say a sentence, like &quot;mi nelci lo nu mi tavla fo la &quot; pa=
use, different tone &quot;lojban&quot; pause, back to the main sentence ton=
e &quot;noi xamgu bangu&quot;</div><div>12:35 &lt; selpahi&gt; I always use=
 glottal stops for {.}</div><div>12:36 &lt; mungojelly&gt; &quot;lojban&quo=
t; as a word having its own little space, being sort of other to the senten=
ce, is why i think there&#39;s been such a strong push towards &quot;lo jbo=
bau&quot; lately, for the flow of it</div><div>12:36 &lt; mungojelly&gt; it=
&#39;s far out, for people who are away from lojban now, when they get back=
 the name of the language will have changed on them :o</div><div>12:37 &lt;=
 mungojelly&gt; when they left they were &quot;tavla fo la .lojban.&quot; a=
nd they&#39;ll get back to being &quot;tavla fo lo jbobau&quot;</div><div>1=
2:37 &lt; selpahi&gt; It&#39;s still known by everyone as la .lojban. but s=
aying that more than once is annoying to pronounce</div><div>12:37 &lt; nor=
as&gt; mi djuno fi la&#39;e zoi kuot. Dot Side kuot.</div><div>12:37 &lt; m=
ungojelly&gt; (i exaggerate, of coruse, the word &quot;lojban&quot; is stil=
l widely known and used)</div><div>12:38 &lt; cirko&gt; yacc: broda lo brod=
a be ca</div><div>12:38 &lt; mensi&gt; (broda {&lt;lo [broda (be {ca KU} BE=
&#39;O)] KU&gt; VAU})</div><div>12:38 &lt; mungojelly&gt; noras: yeah, for =
a long time it was called Dot Side and there was a like debate about it. bu=
t then gradually the debate ended, it was resolved in favor of the dot side=
, as far as actual usage. we mostly just teach dot side to new students as =
the way the language works now.</div><div>12:39 &lt; lojbab&gt; mungojelly:=
 lemi janco pu xrani ca le pavma&#39;i be le prulamna&#39;a, i re le ci slu=
sko cu mulpo&#39;u . i =C2=A0ca le pavpavma&#39;i le mikce cu cikre .i mi c=
aze&#39;i kakne le nu karce sazri</div><div>12:40 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojba=
b: .ua bu&#39;o .i la&#39;a pei do mulno kanro binxo ba .a&#39;o</div><div>=
12:41 &lt; lojbab&gt; mungojelly: I recognize the dotside convention even t=
hough I do not yet use it.=C2=A0 I have expected that it will be one of the=
 earliest changes adopted once CLL 1.1 is out and it can be proposed as cha=
nge pages.</div><div>12:42 &lt;@rlpowell&gt; The test copy is on its way to=
 me, in theory.</div><div>12:42 &lt;@rlpowell&gt; It seems to be on a fairl=
y slow boat.</div><div>12:42 &lt; durka42&gt; heh</div><div>12:42 &lt; b_jo=
nas&gt; I, of course, don&#39;t like the name &quot;lojban&quot; because of=
 its etymology, so I prefer &quot;jbobau&quot; or &quot;lojbo&quot; even th=
ough ultimately it&#39;s derived from &quot;lojban&quot;</div><div>12:43 &l=
t; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: ok? i find the idea of voting whether or not dot =
side at this late date a bizarre proposition. selpahi&#39;s suggestion to s=
mash the lujvo space is what&#39;s on the actual agenda of the language as =
far as i&#39;m concerned, it&#39;s not a likely proposal but it&#39;s being=
 seriously considered now in the places such things actually are seriously =
considered.</div><div>12:43 &lt; selpahi&gt; lol</div><div>12:43 &lt; mungo=
jelly&gt; the actual agenda of lojban right now is more about kurtyvla, for=
 instance. are those kurtyvla really going to stay in the dictionary?</div>=
<div>12:44 &lt; selpahi&gt; If people use them.</div><div>12:44 &lt; selpah=
i&gt; Which they (currently) don&#39;t</div><div>12:44 &lt; mungojelly&gt; =
if not, how do we go about figuring out which ones to demote when? what spa=
ce do we demote them to? these are real on-going questions</div><div>12:44 =
&lt; mukti&gt; FWIW, I think the discussions from which dotside emerged are=
 recorded here: <a href=3D"http://mw.lojban.org/lmw/BPFK:_Old_Morphology">h=
ttp://mw.lojban.org/lmw/BPFK:_Old_Morphology</a></div><div>12:44 &lt; selpa=
hi&gt; I don&#39;t think there can be only one dictionary</div><div>12:44 &=
lt; noras&gt; zo kurtyvla ki&#39;a</div><div>12:44 &lt; mungojelly&gt; selp=
ahi: there&#39;s at least jbovlaste and mlevlaste, now, so there&#39;s at l=
east two</div><div>12:44 &lt; selpahi&gt; jbovlaste is where everyone can d=
o anything, but a printed &quot;official&quot; dictionary would only have w=
ords that are used in literature (for example) or known by everyone</div><d=
iv>12:45 &lt; mungojelly&gt; noras: there&#39;s someone named Curtis Franks=
 making a bunch of two-syllable cmavo, mostly for obscure math things, and =
other people much disapprove</div><div>12:45 &lt; selpahi&gt; What I mean t=
o say is that different dictionaries have different purposes</div><div>12:4=
5 &lt; lojbab&gt; I suspect that the dotside convention is indeed a consens=
us position, =C2=A0Originally that was the standard for adoption by BPFK (a=
nd then I decided to allow up to 2 dissenters).=C2=A0 But it still has to b=
e documented, and it is not yet in CLL.</div><div>12:46 &lt; noras&gt; Plus=
, what is &quot;smash the lujvo space&quot;?</div><div>12:46 &lt; mungojell=
y&gt; but i mean the point is right now we&#39;re deciding about these cmav=
o curtis is making. toi&#39;e is surviving, others are probably going to di=
e.</div><div>12:46 &lt; selpahi&gt; Nothing that needs to be discussed here=
</div><div>12:46 &lt; selpahi&gt; It&#39;s out of place for this occasion</=
div><div>12:46 &lt; noras&gt; je&#39;e</div><div>12:47 &lt; mungojelly&gt; =
so hopefully, since i&#39;m using &quot;toi&#39;e&quot; every day and lots =
of other people also are, hopefully at some point that&#39;d be nice to put=
 in a dictionary so people can understand it. i don&#39;t really care wheth=
er you feel like that makes it &quot;official&quot; so much as i&#39;d like=
 it to be easy for people to understand &quot;toi&#39;e&quot;.</div><div>12=
:47 &lt; mungojelly&gt; toi&#39;e is great!! it modifies an attitudinal wit=
h another one. =C2=A0.oi nai toi&#39;e .o&#39;a nai -- i take pleasure in i=
t, and about that i&#39;m ashamed</div><div>12:47 &lt; lojbab&gt; two sylla=
ble cmavo: he can make all the cmavo he wants, but I simply won&#39;t recog=
nize them, and I am unwilling to even try to learn experimental cmavo when =
people are making them so frequently.</div><div>12:48 &lt; mukti&gt; zo toi=
&#39;e zo&#39;u .oi nai toi&#39;e .o&#39;a nai doi</div><div>12:48 &lt; mun=
gojelly&gt; lojbab: but you can&#39;t just do that. it&#39;s living, it&#39=
;s changing, it&#39;s real. some of the experimental cmavo are awful. some =
of them are used every day, and the language isn&#39;t very useful without =
them.</div><div>12:48 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: we have a cmavo now for t=
alking about selma&#39;o.</div><div>12:48 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: befor=
e that what i did for UI was &quot;lo cmavo be lo selma&#39;o be zo .ui&quo=
t;</div><div>12:49 &lt; selpahi&gt; To be fair, you can also say {lo ui zei=
 selma&#39;o}</div><div>12:49 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: it just doesn&#39=
;t work. no one would talk to me in lojban about selma&#39;o then, because =
that&#39;s silly. now people have started using lojban to talk about selma&=
#39;o, because you can say &quot;ma&#39;oi .ui&quot;</div><div>12:49 &lt; m=
ungojelly&gt; selpahi: sure, or &quot;zo&#39;ei zo .ui&quot; if you just wa=
nna be vague :P</div><div>12:50 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: so now there ar=
e conversations about selma&#39;o in lojban all the time, but you have to l=
earn zo ma&#39;oi to understand them. which isn&#39;t difficult at all.</di=
v><div>12:50 &lt; lojbab&gt; mungojelly; I can do that and I will do that.=
=C2=A0 Just as if someone started adding jabberwocky to their English. =C2=
=A0 I would likely consider them to not be trying to communicate with me, a=
nd simply reject it.=C2=A0 I am very much a supporter of a listener-oriente=
d standard.</div><div>12:51 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: .. the difference i=
s that english in both forms is a living language</div><div>12:51 &lt; mung=
ojelly&gt; lojbab: there&#39;s only one living form of lojban, and it uses =
these few extremely necessary and useful modifications to the draft version=
 from decades ago</div><div>12:52 &lt; mungojelly&gt; again, if you had ano=
ther lojbanistan somewhere where this old lojban was spoken, i&#39;d be ver=
y interested</div><div>12:52 &lt; mungojelly&gt; i&#39;d like to go there a=
nd say, ta&#39;i ma do tavla fi lo selma&#39;o, how do y&#39;all talk about=
 selma&#39;o here anyway</div><div>12:52 &lt; Ilmen&gt; As for what experim=
ental cmavo to recognize (when the time will come), we have search tools al=
lowing us to assess the frequency of use of words nowadays</div><div>12:52 =
&lt; selpahi&gt; I might be a bit unusual in that I&#39;m a crazy mad tinke=
rer, but at the same time hate experimental cmavo.</div><div>12:52 &lt; loj=
bab&gt; I have had no need for any of them, and don&#39;t expect to anytime=
 soon.=C2=A0 I might be wrong about this prediction, but it hasn&#39;t happ=
ened yet.</div><div>12:53 &lt; selpahi&gt; I *know* the experimentals thoug=
h.</div><div>12:53 &lt; mungojelly&gt; but if it&#39;s just a THEORY of a l=
anguage, then i can&#39;t accomodate it. as far as i know there was no way =
to talk about lots of stuff in that old language, we tried and failed and m=
ade this one instead. it&#39;s very similar, you can count the experimental=
 cmavo you NEED to understand most texts on the fingers of your hands.</div=
><div>12:54 &lt; Ilmen&gt; <a href=3D"http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=
=3DExperimental_gismu_and_cmavo_frequency_lists">http://mw.lojban.org/index=
.php?title=3DExperimental_gismu_and_cmavo_frequency_lists</a></div><div>12:=
54 &lt; mungojelly&gt; it hasn&#39;t been broken, it&#39;s still a very loj=
banic lojban. the cmavo we&#39;ve adopted are just a few conveniences that =
proved necessary.</div><div>12:54 &lt; Ilmen&gt; ^ A manually compiled list=
 of experimental cmavo and gismu sorted by frequency of use</div><div>12:55=
 &lt; lojbab&gt; Then maybe I&#39;ll change my mind.=C2=A0 But it hasn&#39;=
t yet happened, and I don&#39;t understand toi&#39;e or zo&#39;ei or ma&#39=
;oi (the three I see above) at all, and I can&#39;t see much use in trying =
(yet).</div><div>12:55 &lt; selpahi&gt; Ilmen: I count three or four words =
on that list I consider necessary for me.</div><div>12:55 &lt; selpahi&gt; =
(cmavo)</div><div>12:55 &lt; mungojelly&gt; la&#39;oi -- allows you to use =
foreign names. i could say &quot;without excessive quoting&quot; but the fa=
ct is that amount of quoting means you just can&#39;t use foreign names in =
fluid speech. now you can.</div><div>12:55 &lt; selpahi&gt; And for all of =
them I would prefer a CV&#39;V</div><div>12:56 &lt; mukti&gt; {di&#39;ai} s=
eems to get a lot of use, whatever its merits</div><div>12:56 &lt; mungojel=
ly&gt; lojbab: zo&#39;ei just means &quot;something related to,&quot; i&#39=
;m sure you can understand it</div><div>12:56 &lt; Ilmen&gt; I&#39;m of the=
 opinion that many many cmavo are not *strictly* necessary. If verbosity is=
 not a problem for you, you can very well speak lojban with a few dozen of =
cmavo. Many cmavo are convenient shorthands though, in my humble opinion.</=
div><div>12:56 &lt; selpahi&gt; Many experimental cmavo are *lazy* shorthan=
ds</div><div>12:57 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lo&#39;ai/sa&#39;ai/le&#39;ai is nec=
essary for corrections, we were already importing something to do it when w=
e didn&#39;t have those, we were using s/// from unix</div><div>12:57 &lt; =
mukti&gt; {ko&#39;oi} is one that seems difficult to express through other =
means</div><div>12:57 &lt; mukti&gt; Maybe possible if you make a very odd =
use of doi</div><div>12:57 &lt; selpahi&gt; {ko&#39;oi} is important, but n=
eeds to be {koi}</div><div>12:57 &lt; mungojelly&gt; i&#39;ve been really e=
njoying using {ko&#39;oi} the past few days, nice feeling to it</div><div>1=
2:57 &lt; selpahi&gt; :P</div><div>12:57 &lt; lojbab&gt; I won&#39;t rememb=
er it tomorrow, and it isn&#39;t in the 1994 cmavo list, which is the *only=
* one I use.=C2=A0 So it is pragmatically useless for me.</div><div>12:57 &=
lt; Ilmen&gt; ie la selpa&#39;i</div><div>12:58 &lt; selpahi&gt; .o&#39;u b=
u&#39;o doi la .ilmen. .i mi nitcu lo ka terpa lo ka xusra lo simsa ca ku</=
div><div>12:58 &lt; Ilmen&gt; mukti: ko&#39;oi do klama ~=3D mi cpedu fi do=
 fe lo ka klama</div><div>12:58 &lt; mungojelly&gt; {ra&#39;oi} for rafsi q=
uotes makes it approachable to discuss lujvo making. i&#39;m adding another=
 one {ta&#39;ai} to mark word shapes, and then i think we&#39;ll really be =
able to have high-level lujvo making discussions.</div><div>12:58 &lt; selp=
ahi&gt; .i lo banfi&#39;i na zanru su&#39;o nu cenba djica</div><div>12:58 =
&lt; mukti&gt; I expect in lojban, as in other languages, speaker&#39;s nee=
d to be aware of the sensitivities and needs of listeners. I don&#39;t use =
strong language around older relatives. I don&#39;t use my full vocabular w=
ith children, etc.</div><div>12:59 &lt; selpahi&gt; {ko&#39;oi} is broader =
than cpedu</div><div>12:59 &lt; selpahi&gt; Just like {ko} is</div><div>12:=
59 &lt; Ilmen&gt; As for {ca&#39;e}, I proposed {jetrinsku}</div><div>12:59=
 &lt; mukti&gt; I don&#39;t use a full range of idioms when speaking with n=
on-fluent speakers.</div><div>12:59 &lt; b_jonas&gt; mungojelly: I don&#39;=
t like those cmavo. I think &quot;zo&#39;oi&quot; is enough. if you want to=
 clarify whether you&#39;re naming a person or mountain or animal species, =
you just add a relative cloause</div><div>12:59 &lt; Ilmen&gt; selpahi: the=
n, we just need to create the appropriate predicate.</div><div>12:59 &lt; m=
ungojelly&gt; mukti: yeah that&#39;s just what i&#39;m planning to do is wr=
ite baby talk to lojbab and noras, but i don&#39;t see why they should aspi=
re to that instead of wanting to catch up with the real language :/</div><d=
iv>12:59 &lt; mungojelly&gt; b_jonas: hm? enough for what? do you speak flu=
ent lojban? english is enough for lots of stuff :/</div><div>12:59 &lt; sel=
pahi&gt; Ilmen: Yes, but it&#39;s hard. It&#39;s like cpecu ja minde ja ...=
</div><div>13:00 &lt; selpahi&gt; cpedu*</div><div>13:00 &lt; Ilmen&gt; For=
 question illocutions, I suggest {briretsku}.</div><div>13:00 &lt; b_jonas&=
gt; mungojelly: no, I don&#39;t speak fluent lojban</div><div>13:00 &lt; lo=
jbab&gt; Since I haven&#39;t yet used fluent speech or anything near to it,=
 and since I work in translation, I have no need of a shorter form for quot=
ing non-Lojban names.=C2=A0 It is NOT shorter for me, because I don&#39;t r=
ecognize the word, and my mental translator then shuts down.</div><div>13:0=
0 &lt; mungojelly&gt; b_jonas: it&#39;s a pain in the ass to say anything o=
ther than {la&#39;oi} if you&#39;re actually speaking out loud about someth=
ing and want to say its name</div><div>13:00 &lt; mukti&gt; Ilmen: Is {ko&#=
39;oi} always {cpedu}? I have the sense that {ko} is more broad than that.<=
/div><div>13:00 &lt; Ilmen&gt; selpahi: if one can define ko&#39;oi, one ca=
n define the predicate equivalent. :)</div><div>13:00 &lt; b_jonas&gt; selp=
ahi: oh, I _like_ &quot;ko&#39;oi&quot;, it&#39;s useful to mark clauses im=
perative or subjunctive. mind you, this might be a bad influence of Hungari=
an.</div><div>13:00 &lt; mungojelly&gt; i don&#39;t think we have a brivla =
that means what {ko&#39;oi} seems to me to mean</div><div>13:01 &lt; b_jona=
s&gt; mungojelly: um, sorry, I&#39;m fine with &quot;la&#39;oi&quot; and &q=
uot;zo&#39;oi&quot;</div><div>13:01 &lt; Ilmen&gt; ko&#39;oi zei ko&#39;oi<=
/div><div>13:01 &lt; Ilmen&gt; zo&#39;o</div><div>13:01 &lt; mukti&gt; Can =
there be a bad influence of Hungarian. :)</div><div>13:01 &lt; selpahi&gt; =
koisku zo&#39;o</div><div>13:01 &lt; mungojelly&gt; b_jonas: oh ok which on=
es seem extra to you? at first i was surprised by ma&#39;oi and ra&#39;oi, =
but then i was so pleased by the conversations they allowed</div><div>13:01=
 &lt; b_jonas&gt; mungojelly: I just don&#39;t like the more specific ones =
like &quot;ra&#39;oi&quot; or whathever other ones there are for person nam=
es, mountain and river names, town names, species names (I think logbau act=
ually has this last one)</div><div>13:01 &lt; Ilmen&gt; ke&#39;u, I suggest=
 {briretsku} for expanding question words.</div><div>13:01 &lt; b_jonas&gt;=
 mungojelly: what does &quot;ma&#39;oi&quot; do?</div><div>13:02 &lt; Ilmen=
&gt; (with this, question words become replaced with {ce&#39;u})</div><div>=
13:02 &lt; b_jonas&gt; mungojelly: I mean, &quot;zo&#39;oi&quot; and &quot;=
la&#39;oi&quot; are like &quot;zoi&quot; and &quot;la&#39;o&quot; respectiv=
ely, right?</div><div>13:02 &lt; lojbab&gt; Ilmen: I agree with you on many=
 cmavo being unnecessary.=C2=A0 And since I learned to speak it when most p=
eople were FAR behind me in learning cmavo, I learned in my listener-orient=
ed way to be aas verbose as needed.=C2=A0 I have ...</div><div>13:02 &lt; m=
ungojelly&gt; b_jonas: it takes an example word, and gives you the selma=
9;o that word belongs to</div><div>13:02 &lt; b_jonas&gt; the first one quo=
tes a word, the second one refers to something by a name</div><div>13:02 &l=
t; b_jonas&gt; je&#39;e</div><div>13:02 &lt; lojbab&gt; no problem with bei=
ng verbose.=C2=A0 I don&#39;t code in APL or C either.</div><div>13:03 &lt;=
 Ilmen&gt; je&#39;e</div><div>13:03 &lt; mukti&gt; lojbab: APL and C being =
verbose languages? Or terse ones?</div><div>13:04 &lt; mungojelly&gt; y&#39=
;all would really hate a style of cmavo i&#39;ve started inventing in my jb=
opeisku then</div><div>13:05 &lt; mungojelly&gt; something i&#39;ve noticed=
 is lojban feels totally different in these different contexts. it&#39;s so=
 different typed in irc than it was on the mailing list, that was a huge sh=
ift.</div><div>13:05 &lt; mungojelly&gt; and it&#39;s also such a different=
 language if you&#39;re hearing it. different shapes come out, different pa=
rts of the language suggest themselves.</div><div>13:05 &lt; Ilmen&gt; ie</=
div><div>13:05 &lt; lojbab&gt; selpahi: .ie me na zanru lo li&#39;i cenba =
=C2=A0That comes from being an old fogey. %^)</div><div>13:06 &lt; mungojel=
ly&gt; but it really goes even crazier if you think in it. and the stragest=
 i guess is dreams. dream lojban is always so grammatically strange, for me=
.</div><div>13:06 &lt; cntrational&gt; whoa holy shit</div><div>13:06 &lt; =
cntrational&gt; lojbab is actually here</div><div>13:06 &lt; mukti&gt; ie s=
ai</div><div>13:06 &lt; mungojelly&gt; cntrational: and he&#39;s been speak=
ing lojban to us even :D :D</div><div>13:06 &lt; Ilmen&gt; .i&#39;e sai tro=
ci lo ka jbobau pilno</div><div>13:06 &lt; cntrational&gt; the world is com=
ing to an end</div><div>13:06 &lt; Ilmen&gt; io</div><div>13:06 =C2=A0* cnt=
rational buys a ticket for a cryoship</div><div>13:06 &lt; Ilmen&gt; xD</di=
v><div>13:07 &lt; mungojelly&gt; i wonder sometimes whether i should even s=
ay the lojban that comes to me from my unconscious, lest it come to life</d=
iv><div>13:07 &lt; mungojelly&gt; but anyway there&#39;s no way any of you =
will like this idea so it&#39;s safe ;)</div><div>13:07 &lt; cntrational&gt=
; languages shouldn&#39;t require much conscious thought</div><div>13:08 &l=
t; mungojelly&gt; in my thinking in lojban i made a new sort of cmavo that&=
#39;s like CV&#39;V&#39;V or CV&#39;V&#39;V&#39;V with a normal cmavo on th=
e front, and then it&#39;s a more gobbly crunchy version of it</div><div>13=
:08 &lt; mukti&gt; lo munje cu co&#39;a ki fanmo gi&#39;o nai cfari</div><d=
iv>13:09 &lt; mukti&gt; (does that apply {co&#39;a} to both terms?)</div><d=
iv>13:09 &lt; mungojelly&gt; cntrational: i&#39;d never spoken lojban witho=
ut thinking about it carefully until this period practicing. it feels reall=
y weird actually. i&#39;m starting to believe that Sapir Whorf thing, serio=
usly. :o</div><div>13:09 &lt; cntrational&gt; mungojelly: quelle terpa</div=
><div>13:10 &lt; b_jonas&gt; .i ta&#39;o ma lojbo cmene do doi la&#39;o di.=
 mungojelly .di</div><div>13:10 &lt; lojbab&gt; they shouldn&#39;t require =
conscious thought, but I haven&#39;t had a Lojban-only thought since around=
 1991.=C2=A0 The language changed and my mind could not accomodate a langua=
ge changing noticeably fast in real time.</div><div>13:11 &lt; cntrational&=
gt; lojbab: i&#39;m a native speaker of telugu, but pretty much all my thou=
ghts in telugu use english loans</div><div>13:11 &lt; mungojelly&gt; but li=
ke zo du&#39;o&#39;ai is an example from my own jbopeisku (thinking in lojb=
an) dialect. it means (to me) &quot;intends to know&quot;. =C2=A0like &quot=
;lo prenu du&#39;o&#39;ai ma kau klama&quot; the person intends to know who=
 goes. *this is not a proposal for non-mungojelly-brain lojban do not use* =
(:</div><div>13:11 &lt; mungojelly&gt; b_jonas: zo .tel. .e zo .selkik. .e =
lo&#39;u stela selckiku le&#39;u mu&#39;a mi jbocme</div><div>13:12 &lt; xo=
rxes&gt; mungojelly: at least the cmavo zo&#39;o&#39;o has been around for =
decades</div><div>13:12 &lt; mungojelly&gt; xorxes: what does that mean?</d=
iv><div>13:12 &lt; mungojelly&gt; xorxes: is it for christmas jokes?</div><=
div>13:12 &lt; cntrational&gt; whoa xorxes is here too</div><div>13:12 &lt;=
 selpahi&gt; On christmas we say {xo&#39;o&#39;o}</div><div>13:13 &lt; selp=
ahi&gt; And all the {santa} jokes</div><div>13:13 &lt; b_jonas&gt; je&#39;e=
</div><div>13:13 &lt; lojbab&gt; So I stopped trying.=C2=A0 I see no need f=
or la&#39;oi?? because I never even use la&#39;o.=C2=A0 I use la zoi kuot .=
.. kuot (which will become illegal under the new proposal on glides, so tha=
t will make it even less likely that I use Lojban.</div><div>13:13 &lt; muk=
ti&gt; Including the Hell Santa jokes.</div><div>13:13 &lt; lojbab&gt; Lang=
uage evolves, but I don&#39;t evolve quick enough.</div><div>13:13 &lt; mun=
gojelly&gt; lojbab: whether you use them isn&#39;t the point. i&#39;m very =
happy to see you USE the lojban that feels natural to you. very happy. i wa=
nt to see in your speech what you want lojban to be.</div><div>13:13 &lt; s=
elpahi&gt; They come with {santa} yes :)</div><div>13:14 &lt; mukti&gt; Onl=
y if you&#39;ve been naughty.</div><div>13:14 &lt; And&gt; _du&#39;o&#39;ai=
_ -- I like it.</div><div>13:14 &lt; cntrational&gt; and And!</div><div>13:=
14 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: but also-- you have to hear how other people=
 say it. it&#39;s easy to learn {la&#39;oi}, that&#39;s why it&#39;s a good=
 cmavo, that&#39;s why it lived, because it&#39;s really mnenomic. it&#39;s=
 a living language with living things that are memorable and learnable beca=
use of selection.</div><div>13:14 &lt; cntrational&gt; is this a mriste inv=
asion</div><div>13:14 &lt; selpahi&gt; {xe santa} is a punishment for badly=
 behaving children? Now I see.</div><div>13:15 &lt; mungojelly&gt; cntratio=
nal: yah there was an arranged meeting earlier, it&#39;s gone into za&#39;o=
</div><div>13:15 &lt; selpahi&gt; cntrational: The LLG had an IRC meeting h=
ere a few hours ago. Some are still here</div><div>13:15 &lt; cntrational&g=
t; i see</div><div>13:15 &lt; mukti&gt; Bad children are kept in line by th=
e threat that fat gismu sneak down the cimni in the middle of the night.</d=
iv><div>13:15 &lt; selpahi&gt; Most gismu would be too bloated to get throu=
gh the cimni</div><div>13:15 &lt; mungojelly&gt; an infinite chimney gif wo=
uld be a good illustration for cimni</div><div>13:16 &lt; mungojelly&gt; i =
searched for &quot;lojban&quot; on pinterest and i found there some awesome=
 illustrations of gismu that i hadn&#39;t seen before, they chose really ev=
ocative pictures</div><div>13:17 &lt; mungojelly&gt; so much better than wh=
en i learned. i learned from those same lists lojbab has been talking about=
. don&#39;t get me wrong, lojbab, i love those lists to death.</div><div>13=
:17 &lt; b_jonas&gt; mungojelly: did they use a black panther, a yellow pan=
ther, or a tiger for {tirxu}?</div><div>13:17 &lt; b_jonas&gt; black panthe=
r would be the best</div><div>13:17 &lt; mungojelly&gt; cmavo_selmaho_order=
.txt for instance has a special place in my heart</div><div>13:17 &lt; lojb=
ab&gt; mungojelly: but also-- you have to hear how other people say it: No =
I don&#39;t!=C2=A0 I just ignore it and don&#39;t speak Lojban.=C2=A0 It ha=
s worked for me =C2=A0for 25 odd years.=C2=A0 And that is why I have always=
 considered my most likely Lojban ventures will be translations, ...</div><=
div>13:17 &lt; mungojelly&gt; but gismu.txt is probably where i spent the m=
ost time. endless hours reading that thing over and over again.</div><div>1=
3:18 &lt; lojbab&gt; because then I don&#39;t have to deal with all these n=
eologisms.</div><div>13:18 &lt; b_jonas&gt; lojbab: correct. translations a=
nd writing is the way you spread the language and how you speak it.</div><d=
iv>13:18 &lt; mungojelly&gt; lojbab: um, no, you can&#39;t speak a language=
 without also hearing it. then you have to invent every construction yourse=
lf, it&#39;s tedious. when you hear other people talk you can take things f=
rom the way they express themselves-- take just the parts you like, of cour=
se.</div><div>13:18 &lt; Ilmen&gt; mungojelly: I&#39;m also using cmavo_sel=
maho_order.txt</div><div>13:18 &lt; b_jonas&gt; lojbab: just committee meet=
ings and decisions don&#39;t make a language, it&#39;s the text and instruc=
tional materials and tools that matter</div><div>13:19 &lt; lojbab&gt; gism=
u.txt and cmavo.txt are my joy.=C2=A0 But alas, I now have Windows 7, and m=
y old DOS &quot;List&quot; program doesn&#39;t work, so I don&#39;t have a =
quick-lookup ability anymore.=C2=A0 It is hunt through the directories and =
load into a text editor.=C2=A0 Usually not worth the effort.</div><div>13:1=
9 &lt; mungojelly&gt; i mean like noras earlier said something with &quot;l=
e nunsalci&quot; and now that&#39;s in my mind, i liked that, i liked the f=
eel of that. i might well soon say exactly &quot;le nunsalci&quot; lazily e=
choing her. but more likely i&#39;ll work it into my own feeling of the lan=
guage in ways i don&#39;t consciously understand.</div><div>13:19 &lt; cntr=
ational&gt; i use vlaste :r</div><div>13:20 &lt; cntrational&gt; vlaste: so=
viet</div><div>13:20 &lt; vlaste&gt; soviet =3D Soviet</div><div>13:20 &lt;=
 cntrational&gt; pff</div><div>13:20 &lt; cntrational&gt; vlaste: soviet lo=
jban</div><div>13:20 &lt; vlaste&gt; 5 results: soviet, jbojevysofkemsuzgug=
je&#39;ake&#39;eborkemfaipaltrusi&#39;oke&#39;ekemgubyseltru, sofybakni, so=
fygu&#39;e, sesre</div><div>13:20 &lt; mungojelly&gt; en: sesre</div><div>1=
3:20 &lt; mensi&gt; sesre =3D x1 reflects USSR (Soviet Union)/Soviet cultur=
e/Soviet nationality in aspect x2 |&gt;&gt;&gt; softo doesn&#39;t mean Sovi=
et !</div><div>13:20 &lt; mensi&gt; Besides, some modern Russians hate Sovi=
et period of their country. What is more, Russian Empire, USSR and Russian<=
/div><div>13:20 &lt; mensi&gt; Federation are three different countries and=
 CIS is not a country at all. Cf. softo, rusko, vukro, slovo, gugdesu&#39;u=
,</div><div>13:20 &lt; mensi&gt; soviet. |&gt;&gt;&gt; VesRul</div><div>13:=
20 &lt; mungojelly&gt; .ua ru&#39;e ru&#39;e</div><div>13:20 &lt; Ilmen&gt;=
 .u&#39;i</div><div>13:21 &lt; b_jonas&gt; lojbab: in case you care, I use =
this reformatting of the gismu list: <a href=3D"http://www.math.bme.hu/~amb=
rus/pu/lojban-chapter-fold100.txt">http://www.math.bme.hu/~ambrus/pu/lojban=
-chapter-fold100.txt</a></div><div>13:21 &lt; Ilmen&gt; I wonder whether Lo=
jbab heard any Lojban song, except maybe the one Selpahi sent him some time=
 ago on the mriste</div><div>13:21 &lt; b_jonas&gt; it&#39;s not perfect, b=
ut it&#39;s what I&#39;m using right now</div><div>13:21 &lt; Ilmen&gt; unl=
ess it was a poem</div><div>13:21 &lt; selpahi&gt; It was a poem I wrote an=
d recorded spontaneously</div><div>13:21 &lt; Ilmen&gt; je&#39;e .i&#39;e</=
div><div>13:22 &lt; lojbab&gt; evocative pictures that probably violate som=
eones copyright.=C2=A0 I am still old fashioned on that stuff.=C2=A0 I can&=
#39;t draw worth beans and presume that any other art I see is probably bei=
ng used illegally.</div><div>13:22 &lt; cntrational&gt; some day</div><div>=
13:22 &lt; cntrational&gt; i will make j-core remixes of selpahi&#39;s song=
s</div><div>13:23 &lt; cntrational&gt; conlang music tends to be folkish st=
uff :c really boring</div><div>13:23 &lt; lojbab&gt; mungojelly: =C2=A0then=
 you have to invent every construction yourself, it&#39;s tedious.... Yes, =
it is, but I have never had any desire to do otherwise.</div><div>13:24 &lt=
; cntrational&gt; where&#39;s the high bpm madness</div><div>13:24 &lt; nor=
as&gt; What do you mean by Lojban song?=C2=A0 We did le ci cribe at one of =
our old Logfests (it&#39;s a sagdraci - I call it an operettina); but, it&#=
39;s all to known tunes.</div><div>13:24 &lt; selpahi&gt; There is real mus=
ic nowadays</div><div>13:24 &lt; selpahi&gt; in Lojban</div><div>13:24 &lt;=
 selpahi&gt; <a href=3D"http://mw.lojban.org/lmw/Lojban_music">http://mw.lo=
jban.org/lmw/Lojban_music</a></div><div>13:25 &lt; lojbab&gt; b_jonas =C2=
=A0just committee meetings and decisions don&#39;t make a language: =C2=A0O=
f course not.=C2=A0 But they make a language user&#39;s group, the existenc=
e of which has given others a language.</div><div>13:25 &lt; Ilmen&gt; Yeah=
, Guskant and Selpahi made some very good songs; I&#39;ve heard that Djemyn=
ai is also making a Lojban album</div><div>13:25 &lt; selpahi&gt; A rap alb=
um!</div><div>13:26 =C2=A0* mungojelly also made some songs but doesn&#39;t=
 get any credit in these conversations :(</div><div>13:26 &lt; lojbab&gt; c=
all it &quot;my gift to humanity&quot; perhaps.=C2=A0 Except of course JCB =
and others were the ones who made everything I do possible.</div><div>13:26=
 &lt; mungojelly&gt; now that la mabla&#39;s over maybe i can produce somet=
hing better so y&#39;all will believe in it :P</div><div>13:27 &lt; selpahi=
&gt; mungojelly: There is probably a distinction between songs with and wit=
hout background music</div><div>13:27 &lt; selpahi&gt; Your songs are liste=
d in the table above</div><div>13:27 &lt; mungojelly&gt; selpahi: that coul=
d be it. but i think it&#39;s probably mostly production quality. if i prod=
uced a quality acapella track people could be down with that.</div><div>13:=
28 &lt; selpahi&gt; Acapellas are nice for remixes</div><div>13:28 &lt; mun=
gojelly&gt; selpahi: yesssss my songs are listed, but what i mean is, when =
people talk about music in lojban, your name is about a thousand times more=
 salient than mine :D</div><div>13:29 &lt; Ilmen&gt; As for the IRC logs, s=
hall I put them on pastbin or directly in a mail?</div><div>13:29 &lt; lojb=
ab&gt; b_jonas: I use this reformatting: =C2=A0I need something to read the=
 list with.=C2=A0 Preferably NOT a text editor, because I&#39;ll accidental=
ly make changes =C2=A0(this was a real problem when my lists were the maste=
r lists for the entire project).</div><div>13:29 &lt; selpahi&gt; Ilmen: Di=
d you remove joins/leaves?</div><div>13:29 &lt; Ilmen&gt; Well, under Windo=
ws you can mark a file as &quot;read-only&quot; so that you cannot change i=
ts content accidentaly</div><div>13:30 &lt; mukti___&gt; I greatly apprecia=
te LLG&#39;s role in propagating Lojban. Much credit is due.</div><div>13:3=
0 &lt; Ilmen&gt; (one need to do a right click on the file&#39;s icon and g=
o into the file properties, and check a ckeckbox &quot;read-only&quot;, if =
I&#39;m not mistaken)</div><div>13:30 &lt; lojbab&gt; I need to quit due to=
 pain level getting too high.=C2=A0 I won&#39;t sign off yet, but no more t=
yping.</div><div>13:31 &lt; Ilmen&gt; Okay</div><div>13:32 &lt; Ilmen&gt; G=
ood luck with your shoulder, Lojbab</div><div>13:32 &lt; Ilmen&gt; Thank yo=
u for having taken part in the discussion. :)</div><div>13:32 &lt; mungojel=
ly&gt; lojbab: .uu di&#39;ai (sorry you don&#39;t feel well, good fortune t=
o you)</div><div>13:32 &lt; Ilmen&gt; .a&#39;o kanro zenba</div><div>13:33 =
&lt; mukti___&gt; Thank you for organizing this IRC session. I hope you fee=
l better soon.</div><div>13:34 &lt; b_jonas&gt; lojbab, which refromatting =
ki&#39;a?</div><div>13:34 &lt; b_jonas&gt; co&#39;o lojbab</div><div>13:35 =
&lt; Ilmen&gt; selpahi: My IRC client automatically separate the actual dis=
cussion from the notifications (join/quit...) into two separate pannels</di=
v><div>13:35 &lt; Ilmen&gt; *panels</div><div>13:35 &lt; selpahi&gt; Ah ok<=
/div><div>13:37 &lt; noras&gt; Lobab comment: &quot;reformatting ki&#39;a&q=
uot;: The fold100.txt you referred to about 10 minutes ago.</div><div>13:37=
 &lt; noras&gt; lobab si lojbab</div><div>13:38 &lt; b_jonas&gt; je&#39;e</=
div><div>13:40 =C2=A0* nuzba @DrSpocktopus: @mollymcghee sorry lojban [<a h=
ref=3D"http://bit.ly/1zq1LdP">http://bit.ly/1zq1LdP</a>]</div><div>13:40 =
=C2=A0* nuzba @WiFiCable: @IceDragoneu Lojban bitte [<a href=3D"http://bit.=
ly/1B5Zwdx">http://bit.ly/1B5Zwdx</a>]</div><div>13:43 &lt; Ilmen&gt; ua na=
i</div><div>13:43 &lt; selpahi&gt; You need the context to understand</div>=
<div>13:43 &lt; Ilmen&gt; li&#39;a</div><div>13:43 &lt; selpahi&gt; In this=
 case don&#39;t bother</div><div>13:43 &lt; selpahi&gt; it&#39;s not very i=
nteresting</div><div>13:44 =C2=A0* Ilmen is trying to find out where to cut=
 the log</div><div>13:44 &lt; selpahi&gt; xu do pu tcidu lo lisri pe lo tsa=
nuki zi&#39;e poi la .tijlan. pu finti .i da pu tu&#39;itsku jungau fi lo d=
u&#39;u zasti</div><div>13:45 &lt; Ilmen&gt; mi frimo&#39;i tu&#39;a lo tu&=
#39;itsku .i ku&#39;i lo lisri na slabu gi&#39;e ku&#39;i se kucli ja&#39;a=
 ku</div><div>13:45 &lt; selpahi&gt; .i mi pu spuda fi lo me la snime blabi=
 moi</div><div>13:45 &lt; selpahi&gt; <a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/corp=
us/show/la%20katcikatcik%20zei%20cmana">http://www.lojban.org/corpus/show/l=
a%20katcikatcik%20zei%20cmana</a></div><div>13:48 &lt; selpahi&gt; za&#39;a=
 la .tijlan. cu fanva pu za lo nanca be li ji&#39;i pa pi mu</div><div>13:4=
9 &lt; cntrational&gt; la .amazon. ca&#39;a vecnu lo remsmima&#39;e ku</div=
><div>13:50 &lt; b_jonas&gt; i zo remsmima&#39;e ki&#39;a</div><div>13:50 &=
lt; lojbab&gt; co&#39;o rodo</div><div>13:50 &lt; noras&gt; mi ji&#39;a nit=
cu fa le nu cliva .i co&#39;o rodo</div></div><div><br></div></div></div></=
div>

--089e0141a160d1e6e3050cfc1e84--


--===============0157905491589542424==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members

--===============0157905491589542424==--