Received: from mail-yw0-f56.google.com ([209.85.213.56]:55189) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Slh9G-000458-Lt; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 07:00:48 -0700 Received: by yhjj63 with SMTP id j63sf6403425yhj.1 for ; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 06:55:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-ct-class:x-ct-score:x-ct-refid:x-ct-spam :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:organization :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=W+aaxTENXO+Glp9NDnv3ekAXo7Y0skQbW47uz5Xd4yE=; b=MUl0qpE3puX3rNDn2cXYNo+siNYbEqA1pz2AeJ7Jb04Nk8tJok6K9gelYE9RrzMRNH T3PDYBR6Kt2ns1gC8LKtFQCibLg0rN4rt1UX4H0p0HrpbyoyT9hXRM8TETMx6mVTIA9t xeE/2kmXyAKR0iEPROnQKtVylVgQk95P6o778= Received: by 10.224.207.66 with SMTP id fx2mr698298qab.8.1341236615570; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 06:43:35 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.202.130 with SMTP id fe2ls9947569qab.5.gmail; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 06:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.31.135 with SMTP id y7mr7646152qac.5.1341236614637; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 06:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.31.135 with SMTP id y7mr7646150qac.5.1341236614623; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 06:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmfepo103.cox.net (eastrmfepo103.cox.net. [68.230.241.215]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id g28si1844668qcq.2.2012.07.02.06.43.34; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 06:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.215 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.215; Received: from eastrmimpo306.cox.net ([68.230.241.238]) by eastrmfepo103.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20120702134334.IUZL8874.eastrmfepo103.cox.net@eastrmimpo306.cox.net> for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:43:34 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.187.237.100]) by eastrmimpo306.cox.net with bizsmtp id VRjZ1j00T2AfMYu02RjZbc; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:43:34 -0400 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020206.4FF1A586.002F,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=lE6QVf3QKtrd1wYyNk9/4OF/ElDepjMss6vemD51WOc= c=1 sm=1 a=YsUzL_8ObRgA:10 a=9kY9JnQf7JoA:10 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:17 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=GXnO433vDYzsbsECduMA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4FF1A584.8070101@lojban.org> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:43:32 -0400 From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Is there any demand for LoCCan3? References: <90a7e54c-42fe-4ee0-9693-8155db9a7646@googlegroups.com> <4FF18EFF.8020308@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.215 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Spam-Note: SpamAssassin invocation failed gleki wrote: > I got your point. Thanks. > > But xorxes's ideas looked like an addition to the language or like > alternative realisations, not necessarily breaking the baseline. Any changes including additions to the grammar, cmavo, or gismu, would "break the baseline", though additions are not as potentially difficult as changes or deletions, which is why we made provision for experimental cmavo. lujvo and fu'ivla are not baselined, so the expected change in the language would be growth in those two categories. If English is any standard, we probably need a lexicon in excess of 20,000 words before the language starts suffering from redundancy enough to think about "deletion". Formally, a baseline means that there are no changes at all for a period of time, and any proposals are fully documented before being considered for approval (which would mean change-pages for CLL and other standard materials, as well as a documented summary discussion of the pros and cons for the change). > May be we can reconsider his ideas trying to find other better ways > within the baseline to remove the need in learning many cmavo (therefore > marking existing connectives as obsolete but still valid), using only > existing rules and therefore making learning spoken lojban a bit easier > for nintadni ? I see no problem with teaching a subset of the language to nintadni. Indeed, I rather doubt that most people need to learn MEX, even if it isn't "obsolete", and other parts of the language (term-sets) are of minor importance in current usage. Of course, in future, things not used much now may become a large importance. The idea was to provide tools for growth so as not to constrain the possibilities, while also STRONGLY avoiding the tendency of artificial language aficionados to "redesign" things which has killed the vast majority of projects that ever got far enough to see real usage. I haven't objected to any use of experimental cmavo, though I myself don't try to read text with experimental cmavo, since I don't keep track of what has been proposed (and I have never been any good at using the wiki to get info, much less contributing to it). But my own proclivities in reading or usage are probably irrelevant, since I contribute so little in those arenas these days. But I really want to see the language as it is well-documented and used-as-documented for a substantial period before I support further fiddling with the language definition. My long-standing policy was a 5 year period, and then Lojban-only discussions of any proposed changes, though I am not sure how much support there is for those concepts, and the decision will not be up to me. lojbab -- Bob LeChevalier lojbab@lojban.org www.lojban.org President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.