Received: from localhost ([::1]:59104 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eVXDW-0004CF-Nc; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:35:30 -0800 Received: from mail-yb0-f179.google.com ([209.85.213.179]:45703) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eVXCy-00049D-7W for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:34:59 -0800 Received: by mail-yb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id k189so2521921ybc.12 for ; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:34:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=rYFDy8rCT4vb0GQqb8lK2e2mQCl/L+fejtZFpdcVhlA=; b=MFgogj4j/7nlBrBTnRVrFoaK4lybXRzwaCvehzbWBrc0n/UxwGw+0OvM1V81h7VzZw FTRFaMdNvrrhbz+FgbApb0zAbZmBuDY3dJX7tLyqbCDpSG4G48iI23OcrFLwRfrPpjoD p1z86R7bf0LxS1OtKi0M56/Z53Twfz86vVKdR/wfDfGebz20Xbf1YgsXP2lXEoo4xOzR NQjbVLPkEfm2LIERkDrNpXFBvTt5b/enWzx08Cq7H0fg5RbYKRfDxaK3gsrVyT1zYAiG fES78I3iBFT5QZpT/j59ARlnPI+CX0RmD6GjLRc1CA6kvfNvRHM1+wS3Jh9+zW9SB+ti ToYQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=rYFDy8rCT4vb0GQqb8lK2e2mQCl/L+fejtZFpdcVhlA=; b=uPUw5GsjgdhpUTE1wlDk1vi4E9zhpEqU4iGTWHXkZyyTdQqFyqfpUc7Vng3j9MahW/ udWimZrbgu8jIbJtM6RtuVK+hvvg+QZQyI0RZNzUfBgLQ2749kpgnrzu70iM8By7uQRv X0HwkCXYg7uS5gqWS9l9V07tDZAyPTmhmMq9Igyk0uvEFUel7gzIuBZBB+CA5YEwHTmM vcOzkVqIHoxY/m1Xrqm+SOzRE9a7Be0HUys2RKjmHydc87n+oX6FGMrh/Ma0GOxKS6Kf qfnN1s4vbmU/sXk/IQBoMl+SOjH0WlA9RVHjE1EQtOgZm0QwhCpdAPl4YYrY8PX0Ixzb IgLA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJwYrqPDLO1eGZUslqT9LaJb/L9BMvhPrsnTRJpRBRW7hT3stOn w3m1VyudImhXo0TlXWebxMCL2BMh/UUCj0w3Trg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBot+uZQhQSTItfvSaFt12PSiTSoQau7WhiZnHN/L/RGx7PCVqXi+fkAFQJqw0TGZZmT1pbhpEvUxA6BZn4QZMWk= X-Received: by 10.37.250.18 with SMTP id b18mr26539982ybe.371.1514702085590; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:34:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:34:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:34:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7074953.2veMK8YGUJ@caracal> <6c826210-9f71-1813-2957-7e5593ad18ed@lojban.org> From: Curtis Franks Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 01:34:44 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.5 X-Spam_score_int: -14 X-Spam_bar: - Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Unfinished Business: BPFK X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6117051420352140344==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============6117051420352140344== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045ea166c093bc05619d0f63" --f403045ea166c093bc05619d0f63 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" They have not yet been seconded. The LLG would still be able to direct its efforts according to the will of its members. If Logical English is of intense, consuming interest to them, then maybe they should be allowed to focus on and support such endeavors while ignoring everything else. And if only Lojban interests them, then they will continue doing approximately what they are doing now (although they may incur cost wrt the first motion). The choice of how to allocate their resources and drives would remain entirely theirs. Some subset of these options are already true of the de facto history of the LLG (in which case such motions are just acting as clarification) and some subset of these options is already hinted at in the bylaws and de juris design of the LLG (in which case, we would just be recommitting to those principles). None of these are really obligations; they are more of mission statements and aspirational policy. Also, as these are entirely separate motions, you can second or vote in favor of some subset of them. For example and in particular, perhaps reconsider your abstention wrt the second motion. They do not exclude any other goals, even if those goals were raised in some of these motions but those motions fail to pass right now. There is some danger in picking only one of these motions though, unless we accept that there can be implicit primary or actionable secondary goals; we would not want to explicitly devote ourselves to one purpose in a manner exclusive of the others if we do in fact want the others but did not pass their motions here. We should also consider the fact that this policy would exist for arbitrarily long duration. If we adopt the second motion only but then decide tomorrow that Lojban is not cool and that there is something better, we would then have to change our policy or we would fail our goals upon de facto dropping Lojban from our collective interest. Without these, we risk being aimless. With them, we risk being bound in undesirable ways. But in some ways, we already are either fulfilling these motions or failing them (and possibly our bylaws) regardless of whether they are official policy. On Dec 31, 2017 00:45, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: 2017-12-30 19:19 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks : > > > On Dec 30, 2017 07:44, "And Rosta" wrote: > > > > On 30 Dec 2017 03:46, "Curtis Franks" wrote: > > Okay, maybe we should take on both projects (exploration and promotion of > logical language in general and also, separately, the exploration and > promotion of Lojban (regardless of its status as a logical language)). We > might also want to create or establish a framework for the creation of a > Lojban derivative which is a logical language by all previously mentioned > standards. > > How do we do this? What proposals or orientations are actionable? > > > > I'd suggest three motions determining the principal aims of the LLG. > > Motion 1. A principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal > goals) is exploration and promotion of logical language in general. > > > I move: > The LLG shall adopt, as a principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any > other principal goals), the intention of exploration and promotion of > logical language(s) in general, subject to the following definitional > framework and description: Presupposing that everything effable (i.e. > linguistically expressible) can be represented as a predicate-argument > structure (PAS), a logical language (in the technical sense, i.e. loglang) > is one that (syntactically-)unambiguously bidirectionally encodes an > unlimited number of PASs. (Also known by some as the 'monoparsing' > property. The relevant bidirectionality is conversion both from PAS to > phonological form and from phonological form to PAS.) > > > Motion 2. A principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal > goals) is promotion of Lojban (regardless of its status as a logical > language) as defined by documents endorsed by the LLG. > > > I likewise (same wording) so move, with terms as described in my > immediately previous motion in this message. > > > Motion 3. A principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal > goals) is creation of a Lojban derivative that is a logical language. > > > I likewise so move, with terms as described in my immediately previous two > motions in this message. > > > For extra clarity, add in to each motion the definition of logical > language that I gave earlier. > > If Motion 1 were to pass, then I'd have some modest concrete suggestions > for what LLG could do (and I would apply to rejoin LLG). If Motion 3 were > to pass then I'd probably have some constructive contributions to make to > the ensuing discussion. > > I abstain from voting on that since I don't have enough information on possible consequences of such new policy. There are many projects that convert logical notation to English, and I know a few projects that convert English to logical notation. I'm not sure what supporting subsets of English (like Aviation English?) could mean to LLG. > --And. > > > > > On Dec 29, 2017 10:30, "And Rosta" wrote: > >> >> >> On 26 Dec 2017 19:36, "Bob LeChevalier" wrote: >> > The bylaws were formulated to broadly cover a variety of forms of >> research into logical languages, and there has always been the possibility >> of conducting or supporting such research. But to put it simply, no one has >> been interested in such research EXCEPT in the form of promoting and >> studying the use of Lojban. >> >> That statement is patently false and wilfully amnesiac. >> >> I was for many years the most vocal proponent of the LLG's mission to >> explore logical language, as opposed to the mission to promote Lojban. As a >> member of LLG and the Lojban community I eventually changed my position, >> but this was because it became increasingly evident to me that the two >> goals (of exploring and promoting logical language, versus promoting >> Lojban) are in fact antithetical; within LLG and the Lojban community, a >> victory for the one goal can be achieved only through the defeat of the >> other; but success in the goal of promoting Lojban can be achieved only >> within LLG and the Lojban community, whereas success in the goal of >> promoting logical language can be achieved outside it; many promoters of >> Lojban (as opposed to logical language) have invested much of their life's >> work in the enterprise, and pursuing the failure of another's life's work >> should be avoided where possible; therefore LLG and the Lojban community >> should be left to promote (conservative) Lojban unopposed (and therefore >> must not be required to promote logical language). >> >> > Indeed, there is a strong antipathy to other "logical languages", >> which I admit to sharing; I'm simply not interested, and never have been - >> languages are too hard for me to learn, and IMHO too difficult to properly >> "invent" with the complete full documentation needed for new people to >> learn and use them. So I hope selpa'i will forgive me if I don't look at >> his own efforts at a new "logical language". >> >> This is all true, except that the Lojban that Lojbab endorses is not a >> logical language, for all that it might falsely advertise itself as such. >> >> The antipathy Lojbab describes exists because Lojban seeks to accrue >> users and promotes itself by falsely claiming to be a logical language. Any >> logical language is therefore a rival to Lojban. And Lojban's false claim >> to be a logical language, coupled with its comparative fame, is an obstacle >> to -- a distraction from -- the promotion of logical language. >> >> >> >> >> So LLG can adopt such research, if some LLG members want to do so, but >> until then LLG considers supporting Lojban to be the best way to promote >> the purposes described in the Bylaws. >> >> >> Again, patent bullshit. >> >> >> While I would be only too delighted for the LLG to promote the purposes >> described in the Bylaws, that would entail deprecating Lojban in its >> baselined and current forms. Given that LLG recruits from the Lojban >> community rather than from the logical language community, it is obviously >> and not unreasonably the case that the large majority of LLG members >> prioritize the promotion of Lojban over the promotion of the purposes >> described in the Bylaws. >> >> --And. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Llg-members mailing list >> Llg-members@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --f403045ea166c093bc05619d0f63 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
They have not yet been seconded.

The LLG would still be able to direct its efforts acco= rding to the will of its members. If Logical English is of intense, consumi= ng interest to them, then maybe they should be allowed to focus on and supp= ort such endeavors while ignoring everything else. And if only Lojban inter= ests them, then they will continue doing approximately what they are doing = now (although they may incur cost wrt the first motion). The choice of how = to allocate their resources and drives would remain entirely theirs. Some s= ubset of these options are already true of the de facto history of the LLG = (in which case such motions are just acting as clarification) and some subs= et of these options is already hinted at in the bylaws and de juris design = of the LLG (in which case, we would just be recommitting to those principle= s). None of these are really obligations; they are more of mission statemen= ts and aspirational policy.

Also, as these are entirely separate motions, you can second or vote in= favor of some subset of them. For example and in particular, perhaps recon= sider your abstention wrt the second motion. They do not exclude any other = goals, even if those goals were raised in some of these motions but those m= otions fail to pass right now. There is some danger in picking only one of = these motions though, unless we accept that there can be implicit primary o= r actionable secondary goals; we would not want to explicitly devote oursel= ves to one purpose in a manner exclusive of the others if we do in fact wan= t the others but did not pass their motions here.
We should also consider the fact that this policy= would exist for arbitrarily long duration. If we adopt the second motion o= nly but then decide tomorrow that Lojban is not cool and that there is some= thing better, we would then have to change our policy or we would fail our = goals upon de facto dropping Lojban from our collective interest.

Without these, we risk being aiml= ess. With them, we risk being bound in undesirable ways. But in some ways, = we already are either fulfilling these motions or failing them (and possibl= y our bylaws) regardless of whether they are official policy.


On Dec 3= 1, 2017 00:45, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:


2017-12-30 = 19:19 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com>:

<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">
On Dec 30, 2017 07= :44, "And Rosta" <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
<= div>

On 30 Dec= 2017 03:46, "Curtis Franks" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrote:
Okay, maybe we should ta= ke on both projects (exploration and promotion of logical language in gener= al and also, separately, the exploration and promotion of Lojban (regardles= s of its status as a logical language)). We might also want to create or es= tablish a framework for the creation of a Lojban derivative which is a logi= cal language by all previously mentioned standards.

How do we do this? What proposals or orientations are= actionable?

I'd suggest= three motions determining the principal aims of the LLG.

Motion 1. A principal goal of the LLG (co= equal with any other principal goals) is exploration and promotion of logic= al language in general.

I move:
The LLG shall adopt, as a principal goal of the= LLG (coequal with any other principal goals), the intention of exploration= and promotion of logical language(s) in general, subject to the following = definitional framework and description:=C2=A0Presupposing that everything effable (i.e.= linguistically expressible) can be represented as a predicate-argument str= ucture (PAS), a logical language (in the technical sense, i.e. loglang) is = one that (syntactically-)unambiguously bidirectionally encodes an unlimited= number of PASs. (Also known by some as the 'monoparsing' property.= The relevant bidirectionality is conversion both from PAS to phonological = form and from phonological form to PAS.)

=

Motion 2.=C2=A0A principal goal of the LLG (coequal with an= y other principal goals) is promotion of Lojban (regardless of its status a= s a logical language) as defined by documents endorsed by the LLG.

I likewise (same wording) so move, with terms as describ= ed in my immediately previous motion in this message.


Motion 3.=C2=A0A princ= ipal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal goals) is creation o= f a Lojban derivative that is a logical language.=C2=A0
<= /blockquote>

I likewise so move, with t= erms as described in my immediately previous two motions in this message.

<= div dir=3D"auto">

For extra clarity, add in to each motion the definition of = logical language that I gave earlier.=C2=A0
<= font face=3D"sans-serif">
If Motion 1 were to pass, then I'd have some modest concrete= suggestions for what LLG could do (and I would apply to rejoin LLG). If Mo= tion 3 were to pass then I'd probably have some constructive contributi= ons to make to the ensuing discussion.


<= /div>
I abstain from voting on that since I don't have enough infor= mation on possible consequences of such new policy.

There are many projects that convert logical notation to English, and I k= now a few projects that convert English to logical notation. I'm not su= re what supporting subsets of English (like Aviation English?) could mean t= o LLG.


<= /font>
--And.
=
=


<= br>

On Dec 29, 2017 10:30, "And Rosta" <and.rosta@gmail.com> w= rote:


On 26 Dec 2017 19:36, "Bob LeChevalier" &= lt;lojbab@lojban.org= > wrote:
> The bylaw= s were formulated to broadly cover a variety of forms of research into logi= cal languages, and there has always been the possibility of conducting or s= upporting such research. But to put it simply, no one has been interested i= n such research EXCEPT in the form of promoting and studying the use of Loj= ban.

That statement is patently false and wilfully amne= siac.

I was for many years the most vocal proponent of = the LLG's mission to explore logical language, as opposed to the missio= n to promote Lojban. As a member of LLG and the Lojban community I eventual= ly changed my position, but this was because it became increasingly evident= to me that the two goals (of exploring and promoting logical language, ver= sus promoting Lojban) are in fact antithetical; within LLG and the Lojban c= ommunity, a victory for the one goal can be achieved only through the defea= t of the other; but success in the goal of promoting Lojban can be achieved= only within LLG and the Lojban community, whereas success in the goal of p= romoting logical language can be achieved outside it; many promoters of Loj= ban (as opposed to logical language) have invested much of their life's= work in the enterprise, and pursuing the failure of another's life'= ;s work should be avoided where possible; therefore LLG and the Lojban comm= unity should be left to promote (conservative) Lojban unopposed (and theref= ore must not be required to promote logical language).

= >=C2=A0 Indeed, there is a strong antipathy to other "logical langu= ages", which I admit to sharing; I'm simply not interested, and ne= ver have been - languages are too hard for me to learn, and IMHO too diffic= ult to properly "invent" with the complete full documentation nee= ded for new people to learn and use them.=C2=A0 So I hope selpa'i will = forgive me if I don't look at his own efforts at a new "logical la= nguage".

This is all true, except that the Lojban = that Lojbab endorses is not a logical language, for all that it might false= ly advertise itself as such.=C2=A0

The antipathy Lojbab= describes exists because Lojban seeks to accrue users and promotes itself = by falsely claiming to be a logical language. Any logical language is there= fore a rival to Lojban. And Lojban's false claim to be a logical langua= ge, coupled with its comparative fame, is an obstacle to -- a distraction f= rom -- the promotion of logical language.




So LLG can adopt such research, if some LLG members want to do so, but unti= l then LLG considers supporting Lojban to be the best way to promote the pu= rposes described in the Bylaws.

Again, patent bullshit.=C2=A0


While I w= ould be only too delighted for the LLG to promote the purposes described in= the Bylaws, that would entail deprecating Lojban in its baselined and curr= ent forms. Given that LLG recruits from the Lojban community rather than fr= om the logical language community, it is obviously and not unreasonably the= case that the large majority of LLG members prioritize the promotion of Lo= jban over the promotion of the purposes described in the Bylaws.=C2=A0

--And.

______________________________________________= _
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members


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



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



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



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


--f403045ea166c093bc05619d0f63-- --===============6117051420352140344== 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 --===============6117051420352140344==--