From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Oct 16 21:01:38 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:01:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ii06D-0004N0-S1 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:01:38 -0700 Received: from smtp.mail.umich.edu ([141.211.14.81] helo=hackers.mr.itd.umich.edu) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ii06B-0004Mc-Pi for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:01:37 -0700 Received: FROM [141.213.217.162] (bursley-217-162.reshall.umich.edu [141.213.217.162]) BY hackers.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 471588E1.EFC2.32480 ; 17 Oct 2007 00:00:33 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <471546B5.7090304@lojban.org> References: <471546B5.7090304@lojban.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <7B6BCEF8-5091-4346-8132-0E571DEA4400@umich.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Alex Martini Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Why not a new LfB text? Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:00:20 -0400 To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 5484 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: alexjm@umich.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Oct 16, 2007, at 7:18 PM, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > Danny wrote: >> I've been trying to learn Lojban off and on for several years. I >> recently subscribed to this mailing list in an attempt to keep myself >> interested in the language. >> There was a discussion about a week ago about how Lojban has changed >> since Lojban for Beginners was written and I am curious as to why >> nobody has bothered to updated the material. > > Lojban has not changed since LfB was written. > > There are two things going on. > > 1. While the language was baselined several years ago, we never > managed to come up with dictionary-quality definitions for the > cmavo. A committee called byfy was charged with this task, and has > been bogged down because it is difficult and somewhat boring. > Furthermore, the effort has identified parts of CLL and LfB that > are vague and/or confusing (and sometimes even contradictory), and > the byfy task has expanded to include making the necessary > clarifications. > > 2. At the same time, there are a couple of areas of the language > that some people have problems with. These problems are difficult > to explain to beginners, and most of the time don't cause any real > problem with communication. The byfy has considered solutions, but > nothing is final yet. Two particularly popular proposals, known > colloquially as "xorlo" and "the dot side" generated the most > debate. The xorlo proposal has drawn little opposition (until this > week) and has apparently been informally adopted by most people on > IRC, but it isn't official; there are proposals to make it official > right away without waiting for the rest of the byfy work to be > completed, and then the statement would be correct that "Lojban has > changed". > > The problem is that when people are confused over something in the > two books, a xorlo supporter will explain things differently from a > user who uses the baseline language. To them, the language has > changed. > >> [ li'o ] >> > lojbab > Ah -- thanks for clarifying that point. I always thought that xorlo *had* been officially adopted. That explains why LfB still uses gadri like CLL. mu'o mi'e .aleks.