From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Oct 11 14:22:32 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao101.cox.net ([68.230.240.7]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ig5UC-00086s-TF for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:22:31 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao101.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20071011212222.SMIK6410.eastrmmtao101.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:22:22 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id z9NH1X00W3y5FKc0000000; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:22:20 -0400 Message-ID: <470E9480.3000307@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:24:16 -0400 From: Bob LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business References: <20070918181955.GW10667@nvg.org> <20071010000942.GZ10376@digitalkingdom.org> <20071011190654.GO13890@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 372 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members Matt Arnold wrote: > On 10/11/07, Theodore Reed wrote: > >>On 10/11/07, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >> >>>On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 05:09:42PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:19:55PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: >>>> >>>>>10. New Business >>> >>>At the behest of certain others on #lojban, I therefore move that >>>the membership recognize xorlo. Specifically, I move that the >>>membership assert that xorlo is more correct than the CLL at this >>>time, that whatever the BPFK come up with xorlo will be part of it, >>>and that new Lojbanists should be taught it as soon as possible. >> >>I second this. >> >>mu'omi'e.bancus. >> > > > I cast my vote in favor of recognizing xorlo as more correct than CLL. Whereas I will vote "no". My reasoning is if there is a substantial number who think that xorlo should be made the rule, then they should be plugging away at byfy work so that when it gets done and there is sufficient consensus, it will be the rule. If we start adopting things piecemeal by membership vote then 1) The concept that the membership is about the organizational and business aspects of the Lojban community, and not the language definition (already asserted once in this meeting) is thoroughly destroyed. 2) It sets a precedent for going around the byfy, with the decisions being made by majority vote of the membership rather than consensus of the byfy. This not only weakens the potential of the byfy, but tends to detract even further from the motivation to get the job done. 3) It is the pressure to get that consensus agreement, and the tradeoffs that people need to make to reach that point, that make consensus building possible. By removing issues from the table by membership fiat, consensus building becomes harder. That being said, I will offer a substitute motion that I could support, because of its nonbinding nature. "... that it is the sense of the LLG membership that xorlo should be adopted by the byfy, and that it is the sense of the membership that the self-consistent use of either xorlo or the CLL standard by members of the community, pending a final decision by the byfy, should not be considered incorrect and subject to correction". This is actually in keeping with the "let usage decide" dictum. I have no trouble with people just simply using xorlo. It is when they say that someone using the CLL baseline standard is "wrong", that I get my dander up. If they explain to a newbie that expression E means one thing under xorlo and another thing under the baseline, and that most people in that particular forum are using xorlo, that is fine. Deprecating the baseline, especially in English language discussion, is NOT "letting usage decide". This should in general be true of any proposed change that has some broad support. Run it up the flagpole of actual usage and have it broadly accepted, and the byfy arch-conservatives like myself have little ground to veto inclusion of the usage in the final consensus. I will say honestly that I have avoided giving much thought to xorlo. I avoided the byfy discussion because it was too time consuming and contentious. I have not learned it, and I have not tried to use it. I furthermore will not use it until the byfy makes the determination, regardless of whether the original motion passes. (At that point, well, I am suspicious that my 20 years of ingrained habits of Lojban usage may make those areas where there is in fact a difference between the two systems, a gap that is beyond my ability (and willingness) to relearn. If such is the case then I will go to my grave speaking "incorrect Lojban" and not really caring). lojbab