On Friday, December 28, 2012 3:27:38 AM UTC+4, = lojbab wrote:

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=20
of sales merely to pay for the printing costs, if one ignores=20
inflationary costs of money.

At this point we are making money - maybe $2000 a year. But a goo= d=20
chunk of that pays for various LogFests, and our bank account probably= =20
isn't yet large enough to print a new hardcover if and when it becomes= =20
appropriate.

> Yet even CLL 1.1 will be grammatically incorrect.

As I understand it, by Robin's intent, it is an intermediate product=20
that represents the official language definition as it stands, without= =20
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= =20
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= .=20
The textbook by Nick Nicolas and Robin Turner is probably better= for=20
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 a= t=20
all.

> Translating to other languages is tiresome

Yes. So?

> and the current github format doesn't allow synchronous upda= tes to=20
other languages.

We haven't managed to finalize it in its current form, so worrying abou= t=20
translation is a bit premature. I would not expect any major effo= rt to=20
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= =20
plausible choice.

> All languages are equal to me.

Good for you. If someone writes something about Lojban is a langu= age I=20
don't know well enough to understand what is written, then I won't be= =20
reading it.

> Now why do we need the CLL?

It is the formal definition of the language. The standard for the= =20
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=20
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?

As for level 1 (dictionary) it's a ver= y minor problem. Just as with level 2 it's a subject to translation to all = languages. It's largely semantics level.

We've has the gismu and cmavo word lists since 1988, and they have more= =20
or less served this purpose all that time.

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

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 a= t 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 mo= ve 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 complicate= d 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= =20
write something like CLL in Lojban and have it be understandable to=20
others. xorxes and Robin probably are capable of translating the text= =20
into Lojban, but not quickly, and most likely the result wouldn't be=20
understood by all that many.

I'm talking about the future.

I want people to talk in Lojban itself. Not just talkin= g about Lojban.

> Some may say that CLL 1.1 is very important

It is an important milestone for the language. Actually 2.0 is th= e more=20
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=20
only way we are capable of at this point.

Exactly. "At this point" , a point tha= t can last forever until we get fluent speakers and denaskuloj.

<= br>

> 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 expe= nses=20
for the organization and slowly accumulate money so that we can offer= =20
revised materials in print for those who still value a printed book.

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

CLL isn't about making Lojban popular. Nor is it about advertisin= g.=20
The intro book, which replaced the introductory brochure, is the closes= t=20
thing we have to "advertising".

> Money provide nothing.

It pays the bills.

Money is not necessary in a community = where people don'y ask money for something they love.

L= ove cannot be bought.

> Human desire provide everything.

I wish it were that easy.

> If 10 000 people around the world find lojban awesome and reach fl= uency
> 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=20
having 50 seems a little difficult.

This is why i started this topic.

And then there are people like me, who in 25 years has never come close= =20
to fluency. For me, it remains as much a struggle to read Lojban = text=20
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= =20
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= =20
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 i= n
> Esperanto, not even in English.

With their numbers, and 125 years to produce stuff, why would you be=20
surprised?

If you had those 10,000 fluent Lojbanists, there would be a lot of stuf= f=20
written in Lojban too.

lojbab

--=20
Bob LeChevalier loj...@lojban.org <= a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org" target=3D"_blank">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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/vZ= flz2hQGXoJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
------=_Part_1678_17333561.1356674259247--