Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.214 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.214;
Message-ID: <50DCD96A.3030903@lojban.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:27:38 -0500
From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
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] Anti-CLL aka a proposal for a new policy for teaching lojban
References: <4da4c546-c84a-4ec8-95bc-10fa83830105@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <4da4c546-c84a-4ec8-95bc-10fa83830105@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la gleki wrote:
> 1. The CLL is a tool to raise money in Lojbanistan.

That is/was certainly NOT its purpose.  It took more than 10 years worth 
of sales merely to pay for the printing costs, if one ignores 
inflationary costs of money.

At this point we are making money - maybe $2000 a year.  But a good 
chunk of that pays for various LogFests, and our bank account probably 
isn't yet large enough to print a new hardcover if and when it becomes 
appropriate.

> Yet even CLL 1.1 will be grammatically incorrect.

As I understand it, by Robin's intent, it is an intermediate product 
that represents the official language definition as it stands, without 
byfy changes (of which only xorlo has been officially approved).

> What is the reason to raise money from something broken?

We have made no plans to offer 1.1 for sale.

> Present something perfect and the book will become a bestseller.

Not hardly.

> 2. The CLL is useless pretty much.

Maybe to you.  To me and many others it is useful for its primary 
purpose, which is as a reference book.

> It doesn't teach people language.

It wasn't meant to, though many have learned the language by reading it. 
  The textbook by Nick Nicolas and Robin Turner is probably better for 
teaching purposes.

> 3. The CLL is written in English and is very long.

For a reference grammar describing an entire language, it is not long at 
all.

 > Translating to other languages is tiresome

Yes.  So?

 > and the current github format doesn't allow synchronous updates to 
other languages.

We haven't managed to finalize it in its current form, so worrying about 
translation is a bit premature.  I would not expect any major effort to 
translate 1.1.

> If you love english it's your choice.

If we don't speak any language other than English, then it is the only 
plausible choice.

> All languages are equal to me.

Good for you.  If someone writes something about Lojban is a language I 
don't know well enough to understand what is written, then I won't be 
reading it.

> Now why do we need the CLL?

It is the formal definition of the language.  The standard for the 
language baseline.

> To provide the most detailed description for
> experienced users? Well, that's a good idea. But why using English here?

Because it is the language that the author and I and pretty much 
everyone else who has worked on it is capable of writing.

> Here is my proposal.
> 1. Present a short dictionary with definitions readable by humans.

In what language would it be readable to all humans?

We've has the gismu and cmavo word lists since 1988, and they have more 
or less served this purpose all that time.

> 2. Update and develop the Waves 2.0 (from la klaku's original lessons).

I have no ideas what this is, and have never seen anything by klaku.

> The goal is that people that use only these Waves and a dictionary can
> start speaking Lojban and reach fluency.

Perhaps some can.

> The second goal is that Waves must be as short and comprehensive at the same time as possible.

No idea what that means.  Short is the opposite of comprehensive.

> 3. jbo-CLL.
> When the person successfully completes the previous item ey can move to
> this level. This book will give the most detailed and contemporary
> description of the language that a fluent speaker is able to read and
> understand. It's written in simple lojban but describes complicated issues.

There exists no simple lojban that describes complicated issues.

So far as I know, there is no one yet sufficiently skilled in Lojban to 
write something like CLL in Lojban and have it be understandable to 
others. xorxes and Robin probably are capable of translating the text 
into Lojban, but not quickly, and most likely the result wouldn't be 
understood by all that many.

> Some may say that CLL 1.1 is very important

It is an important milestone for the language.  Actually 2.0 is the more 
important one, but it isn't written yet. One step at a time.

>(and thus they implicitly advertise English, not Lojban)

It isn't "advertising" anything.  It is defining the language, in the 
only way we are capable of at this point.

> I don't understand where the money
> obtained from selling the books go to (to advertising lojban?).

Not nearly enough to do that.  Ideally we can cover operating expenses 
for the organization and slowly accumulate money so that we can offer 
revised materials in print for those who still value a printed book.

> It's the perfect design, not any advertisements that can make Lojban popular.

CLL isn't about making Lojban popular.  Nor is it about advertising. 
The intro book, which replaced the introductory brochure, is the closest 
thing we have to "advertising".

> Money provide nothing.

It pays the bills.

> Human desire provide everything.

I wish it were that easy.

> If 10 000 people around the world find lojban awesome and reach fluency
> all most important goals are complete.

Which goals are more important, and who defines them as such?

I'd love to have 10,000 people fluent in Lojban, but at this point 
having 50 seems a little difficult.

And then there are people like me, who in 25 years has never come close 
to fluency.  For me, it remains as much a struggle to read Lojban text 
as it did around 20 years ago.

> That's the plan how we can make Lojban much more popular,

Until we complete the language definition, I am not making much effort 
to make Lojban more popular.

> learnable and well-known around the world,

10,000 is hardly well known. Esperanto isn't considered well-known, and 
it has more than a million speakers.

> P.S. Recently I've discovered that much stuff on lernu.net (a web site
> for Esperanto learners) has much information written exclusively in
> Esperanto, not even in English.

With their numbers, and 125 years to produce stuff, why would you be 
surprised?

If you had those 10,000 fluent Lojbanists, there would be a lot of stuff 
written in Lojban too.

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.