Received: from [::1] (port=60248 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eVXRu-0005Ci-28; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:50:22 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:37661) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eVXRK-00059O-3F for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:49:50 -0800 Received: by mail-wm0-f68.google.com with SMTP id f140so53557226wmd.2 for ; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:49:43 -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=ElE3vseUasE+JwjWOVrM2gS9SfTdu/VN/b/4fpqgszw=; b=TdwvE9lO8su7nCBbS5O7hf7NBLXkhYcYWUbV3rk3HGQ9feBBZIiX0hjLS2lVTaVv0t 6a2rwT6Gvw0rYVf/Ry7ZUP77pqQg6IY8FT+KeUDpDIe6u0HkAQIpCTndSHlNqJ0PCXkV 1zOPWgUG+MiC57M8UWUY22yRP9acZC7w1b1Jhsd4CM12jiwLrJbtqB4rGesB3TGStobT RabKWe+LujntLGv2AzMjmm2KAFQDCrUKKzEGS2Ifw7dA4MeRyQWy8UFH6/nWpwY5l7jz G/O6cm643GFU3ZJM3SWUz2QSfFllEyixTueJGEdBe1h51hFMcPAIilXi3eg42p0nhn6/ 9sqQ== 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=ElE3vseUasE+JwjWOVrM2gS9SfTdu/VN/b/4fpqgszw=; b=IqZnCqf3cSVBYPsIi9Bs4p740GSSd9TlPrPjACf1gMDRMIPMIfc5/zSw7PbSvJxWFx aVlRfbjlrLuLkjeH3kWbeKHU56xq4EpzoQ7EPYrZEXQOAsCYDCpJXb6F0HAvSE3ME5Pk 9yRIP2qxI25PQgl1+jx0QwKj19wzQyuvIgC52iDjg43wDqdWGNQLnFBw+qKJfbc0daSt OiZZ1DrsfdYXMM4X0BAM7GjAqGNdighLLvOSzeZ9FGLxBPL2mrjTzMB+lPf2kL2YEx0T Qf1V1A5h9cxU3ePKHP67Qu5LS+54+jsJd3Fb0ttsSw8eWW+Hwf5dTODKUoOw8uAcOR0R 1ZDQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mK5IqGXP/kq+Z88d3PdJlSMGV8fNqP4SoMvnV966OY4QZ8GeolB rUFp2AnnwOwgyuSFkK+BYElHlrIxGXXlFc11Mf50 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotd7rS9xpeoijS7nkpDy+CgqJl0nCbijmtMcqGV40E/U76JROiqorPVn+ayVYJjLqM3J6CFs94bNRcK8rjRpcg= X-Received: by 10.80.142.178 with SMTP id w47mr53512984edw.251.1514702975725; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:49:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.173.219 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:48:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7074953.2veMK8YGUJ@caracal> <6c826210-9f71-1813-2957-7e5593ad18ed@lojban.org> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 09:48:55 +0300 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="===============0971983364583058500==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============0971983364583058500== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c0d50cef3b305619d445e" --f403045c0d50cef3b305619d445e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 2017-12-31 9:34 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks : > 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. > Your motion deals with actual work, which LLG hasn't been doing for years (at least not in my epoch). I'm under the same paralysis as others. On the other hand BPFK being in action ultimately led to recurring criticism of its decisions by non-members of BPFK. And on the gripping hand ({ma'i lo cimoi}, probably not {zu'ucu'i}) what does it even mean to support other spoken logical languages when there is almost zero interest in them in non-Lojbanists? Xorban community faded out in several months, Ithkuil could count as a logical language but not accroding to this motion. 1. Does anyone happen to know any communities or good places where spoken logical languages are discussed by non-Lojbanists? 2. Does anyone happen to know any communities or good places where knowledge representation languages like RDF are discussed? > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --f403045c0d50cef3b305619d445e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2017-12-31 9:34 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gma= il.com>:
They have not yet been seconded.

The LLG would still be able to direct its efforts acc= ording to the will of its members. If Logical English is of intense, consum= ing interest to them, then maybe they should be allowed to focus on and sup= port such endeavors while ignoring everything else. And if only Lojban inte= rests 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 sub= set 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 principl= es). None of these are really obligations; they are more of mission stateme= nts and aspirational policy.

Also, as these are entirely separate motions, you can second or vote i= n favor of some subset of them. For example and in particular, perhaps reco= nsider 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 ourse= lves to one purpose in a manner exclusive of the others if we do in fact wa= nt the others but did not pass their motions here.
<= br>
We should also consider the fact that this polic= y 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 som= ething 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 aim= less. With them, we risk being bound in undesirable ways. But in some ways,= we already are either fulfilling these motions or failing them (and possib= ly our bylaws) regardless of whether they are official policy.
<= /blockquote>

Your motion deals with actual work, which L= LG hasn't been doing for years (at least not in my epoch). I'm unde= r the same paralysis as others.
On the other hand BPFK being in a= ction ultimately led to recurring criticism of its decisions by non-members= of BPFK.=C2=A0
And on the gripping hand ({ma'i lo cimoi}, pr= obably not {zu'ucu'i}) what does it even mean to support other spok= en logical languages when there is almost zero interest in them in non-Lojb= anists?
Xorban community faded out in several months, Ithkuil cou= ld count as a logical language but not accroding to this motion.
=
1. Does anyone happen to know any communities or good places= where spoken logical languages are discussed by non-Lojbanists?
= 2. Does anyone happen to know any communities or good places where knowledg= e representation languages like RDF are discussed?




On Dec 31, 2017 00:45, "Gleki Arxokun= a" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:


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

=

On Dec 30, 2017 0= 7:44, "And Rosta" <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:


On 30 Dec = 2017 03:46, "Curtis Franks" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrote:
Okay, maybe we should take on both projects (explorati= on and promotion of logical language in general and also, separately, the e= xploration and promotion of Lojban (regardless of its status as a logical l= anguage)). We might also want to create or establish a framework for the cr= eation of a Lojban derivative which is a logical language by all previously= mentioned standards.

How do w= e 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.
<= /div>

I mov= e:
The= LLG shall adopt, as a principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other pr= incipal goals), the intention of exploration and promotion of logical langu= age(s) in general, subject to the following definitional framework and desc= ription:=C2=A0Presupposing that everything effable (i.e. linguistically expressible) ca= n be represented as a predicate-argument structure (PAS), a logical languag= e (in the technical sense, i.e. loglang) is one that (syntactically-)unambi= guously 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 any other principal goals) is promotion of Lojban (regardless = of its status as a logical language) as defined by documents endorsed by th= e LLG.
<= br>
I likewise (same wording) so move, with t= erms as described in my immediately previous motion in this message.
<= span>


Motion 3.= =C2=A0A principal goal of the= LLG (coequal with any other principal goals) is creation of a Lojban deriv= ative that is a logical language.=C2=A0

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


For ex= tra clarity, add in to each motion the definition of logical language that = I gave earlier.=C2=A0

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 th= en I'd probably have some constructive contributions to make to the ens= uing discussion.


I abstain fr= om voting on that since I don't have enough information on possible con= sequences of such new policy.

There are many proje= cts that convert logical notation to English, and I know a few projects tha= t convert English to logical notation. I'm not sure what supporting sub= sets of English (like Aviation English?) could mean to LLG.


--And.




On Dec 29, 20= 17 10:30, "And Rosta" <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:


On 26 Dec 2017 19:36, "Bob L= eChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> 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 study= ing the use of Lojban.

That statement is patently false= and wilfully amnesiac.

I was for many years the most v= ocal proponent of the LLG's mission to explore logical language, as opp= osed to the mission to promote Lojban. As a member of LLG and the Lojban co= mmunity I eventually changed my position, but this was because it became in= creasingly evident to me that the two goals (of exploring and promoting log= ical language, versus promoting Lojban) are in fact antithetical; within LL= G 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 Lojb= an can be achieved only within LLG and the Lojban community, whereas succes= s in the goal of promoting logical language can be achieved outside it; man= y promoters of Lojban (as opposed to logical language) have invested much o= f their life's work in the enterprise, and pursuing the failure of anot= her's life's work should be avoided where possible; therefore LLG a= nd the Lojban community should be left to promote (conservative) Lojban uno= pposed (and therefore must not be required to promote logical language).

>=C2=A0 Indeed, there is a strong antipathy to other &= quot;logical languages", which I admit to sharing; I'm simply not = interested, and never have been - languages are too hard for me to learn, a= nd IMHO too difficult to properly "invent" with the complete full= documentation needed 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 ne= w "logical language".

This is all true, excep= t that the Lojban that Lojbab endorses is not a logical language, for all t= hat it might falsely advertise itself as such.=C2=A0

Th= e antipathy Lojbab describes exists because Lojban seeks to accrue users an= d 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 b= e 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 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@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


--f403045c0d50cef3b305619d445e-- --===============0971983364583058500== 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 --===============0971983364583058500==--