Received: from mail-yh0-f63.google.com ([209.85.213.63]:39055) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TpZ2v-0008VG-RW; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 22:40:43 -0800 Received: by mail-yh0-f63.google.com with SMTP id q3sf552502yhf.18 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 22:40:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :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=tSifVqfsqEpfQ0k3WqZijm/Oz3SfZvR3jsPq3RZAp0U=; b=quscXcciRd1v6toxB8JOhb/DA8spI62/tiDen9TYoyCttZnGvKTYMwix0gBPihnVl6 BiOPNSBMxbO2JZsBtTKluNMkbWDG4g0Y4JE0SxOM6s6XKMOvmSY+b9s7U4mafdlUj4Wx Y7CVxr3VffOrYEIHEB1lvQJGHd7cKzbkvlrThBEjAgxO9ND6BxUOLaHbjDyagbsm67sw vlwIpcaKY6xW9BG6jl0W57md5FLtfbCmRD+YqYNLcKcelqQsENzBmelVClFjCwsekju3 D+k+Pypxn7MOPBy0mGujSEPyNRUmyE9MnF0sE4fuGNS9g0Q9A/v/Omar8jd3pP1pDoBM Cp8g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :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=tSifVqfsqEpfQ0k3WqZijm/Oz3SfZvR3jsPq3RZAp0U=; b=iE10CTm38ZPWkUgzL/rCF4HnsLApT8MLtyqxgw/MDmnDlE1p82xInOsXAlIwiKBO+8 v9upN1uznPCucne2UoXNxzYcfiYT+OJAsSa+5DbQGuxar1MxgyllmWqaqeDZLW3EcStN 3O2IDNOWFTiAXBxjd85kbTd5ZDneiKKvFIi6XeeVlczYC8OJQGIzg/D97eowUClc0oNi 28Gt9/iFWhhXpnbfS6/cjT4Tg5cgawpOXBaG0tbrRfZiULxStoNShqR56tMTdtCTlAh9 QhLUbHOWWKoL7aw6kpR9JAteJA9EhWl/ZyOM2oZkc3R8MSOjbShkIYAzf+lGY3sry+tz VfgA== X-Received: by 10.49.34.135 with SMTP id z7mr6038815qei.1.1356936018672; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 22:40:18 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.39.234 with SMTP id s10ls5114082qek.32.gmail; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 22:40:17 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.49.98.42 with SMTP id ef10mr5979244qeb.15.1356936017316; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 22:40:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 22:40:16 -0800 (PST) From: la gleki To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <50E0CF4C.1020705@lojban.org> References: <20121227222129.GN7855@samsa.fritz.box> <20121227222753.GG18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121227231105.GO7855@samsa.fritz.box> <20121227232206.GI18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121227232732.GP7855@samsa.fritz.box> <20121227233537.GJ18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121227235946.GQ7855@samsa.fritz.box> <20121228000348.GL18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121228185329.GO18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121228215107.GR7855@samsa.fritz.box> <50DEF2D2.6080309@lojban.org> <50E04A0F.8080408@lojban.org> <80850efe-706f-4afe-8788-77fd6daa6b59@googlegroups.com> <50E05EB8.5040104@lojban.org> <50E0CF4C.1020705@lojban.org> Subject: Re: [lojban] CLL 1.1/ CLL 2.0. What is your opinion in the current situation? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com 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: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_715_1581955.1356936016522" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_715_1581955.1356936016522 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Monday, December 31, 2012 3:33:32 AM UTC+4, lojbab wrote: > > la gleki wrote: > > ta'onaisai can you please explain how gimste was formed? Is it based on > > english semantics? > > Who and how selected sumti places? Was there anybody who looked at e.g. > > Chinese semantics and imported concepts from there? > > Not this week. Maybe after the 25th anniversary LogFest. > > > and a comparative reference grammar that discusses several dozen > > languages in more or less the same format of 10-50 page essays. > > > > I did a study of lexicography in the 1990s to learn how to write a > > proper dictionary. > > > > > But this is something that must be discussed further. > > > > NOTHING "must" be discussed further. > > > > Things must be DONE, not "discussed". Discussion is the enemy of > > getting things done. > > > > And proposing changes for discussion, as you seem to habitually do, > > makes paying attention to your proposals antithetical to getting > things > > done. > > > > If you mean helping with CLL 1.1 i already expressed my opinion. > > I have no particular reason to care about your opinion. > > I was referring mostly to two threads you have initiated in the past > week, one proposing a complete change in the organization's priorities > for documentation when you clearly don't know what those priorities are > and why they were chosen. The other is the one with subject line: > Re: [lojban] Revising mu'ei and CAhA once again. Possible worlds. > to which you made no less than 7 posts on a topic that clearly sounds > like a change proposal without waiting for anyone else to respond. And > you invoke idiosyncrasies of TLI Loglan, guaspi and Ithkuil, as if they > have some relevance to Lojban. They don't. > > No one is stopping you from writing Lojban with all manner of > idiosyncratic experimental cmavo derived from all sorts of weird > sources. But I won't understand such Lojban, and I won't even try, if I > am running into a lot of experimental stuff. Meanwhile, experimental > stuff is just that - experimental. It will not be included in the > formal documentation of the language, either 1.1 or 2.0, and probably > not in any teaching materials, either. > How can a language without defined system of subjunctives exists? Subjunctives are absent in Lojban. It's not a change. > > > As for rewriting cmavo definitions i dont understand how I can help. > > If you don't understand, then probably you cannot help. No one has time > to figure out how to enable others to help. The current situation, > alas, is one in which one single person has to do a lot of work and > serves as a bottleneck until they have time to get done. But all other > approaches that we've tried have failed, because people with limited > time are more interested in discussing than in doing. > > > Do you wish i presented a ma'oste with new definitions? > > No. > > > what would it change? > > everyone would ignore it. > > I hope so. > > I don't want any change to the cmavo list. > You told earlier in this thread that cmavo definitions were broken. Are you denying it now? > > The concept of our baselines is that things DON'T change without a good > reason, and eventually that only changes will be officially adopted > after seeing lots of people actually use them in fluent conversation or > text, rather than talking about them as proposals for fiat change. If > your change is sufficiently non-evolutionary that it cannot be > introduced by usage without explanation (or maybe with minimal > explanation entirely in Lojban), it probably won't catch on. > > lojbab > -- > Bob LeChevalier loj...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/1b0emrKQf-8J. 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. ------=_Part_715_1581955.1356936016522 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Monday, December 31, 2012 3:33:32 AM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:la gleki wrote:
> ta'onaisai can you please explain how gimste was formed? Is it &nb= sp;based on
> english semantics?
> Who and how selected sumti places? Was there anybody who looked at= e.g.
> Chinese semantics and imported concepts from there?

Not this week.  Maybe after the 25th anniversary LogFest.

>     and a comparative reference grammar that discusses s= everal dozen
>     languages in more or less the same format of 10-50 p= age essays.
>
>     I did a study of lexicography in the 1990s to learn = how to write a
>     proper dictionary.
>
>      > But this is something that must be discus= sed further.
>
>     NOTHING "must" be discussed further.
>
>     Things must be DONE, not "discussed".  Discussi= on is the enemy of
>     getting things done.
>
>     And proposing changes for discussion, as you seem to= habitually do,
>     makes paying attention to your proposals antithetica= l to getting things
>     done.
>
> If you mean helping with CLL 1.1 i already expressed my opinion.

I have no particular reason to care about your opinion.

I was referring mostly to two threads you have initiated in the past=20
week, one proposing a complete change in the organization's priorities= =20
for documentation when you clearly don't know what those priorities are= =20
and why they were chosen.  The other is the one with subject line:
Re: [lojban] Revising mu'ei and CAhA once again. Possible worlds.
to which you made no less than 7 posts on a topic that clearly sounds= =20
like a change proposal without waiting for anyone else to respond. &nbs= p;And=20
you invoke idiosyncrasies of TLI Loglan, guaspi and Ithkuil, as if they= =20
have some relevance to Lojban.  They don't.

No one is stopping you from writing Lojban with all manner of=20
idiosyncratic experimental cmavo derived from all sorts of weird=20
sources.  But I won't understand such Lojban, and I won't even try= , if I=20
am running into a lot of experimental stuff.  Meanwhile, experimen= tal=20
stuff is just that - experimental.  It will not be included in the= =20
formal documentation of the language, either 1.1 or 2.0, and probably= =20
not in any teaching materials, either.

How can a language without defined sys= tem of subjunctives exists?
Subjunctives are absent in Lojban. It= 's not a change.
 

> As for rewriting cmavo definitions i dont understand how I can hel= p.

If you don't understand, then probably you cannot help.  No one ha= s time=20
to figure out how to enable others to help.  The current situation= ,=20
alas, is one in which one single person has to do a lot of work and=20
serves as a bottleneck until they have time to get done.  But all = other=20
approaches that we've tried have failed, because people with limited=20
time are more interested in discussing than in doing.

> Do you wish i presented a ma'oste with new definitions?

No.

> what would it change?
> everyone would ignore it.

I hope so.

I don't want any change to the cmavo list.

You told earlier in this thread that c= mavo definitions were broken. Are you denying it now?

The concept of our baselines is that things DON'T change without a good= =20
reason, and eventually that only changes will be officially adopted=20
after seeing lots of people actually use them in fluent conversation or= =20
text, rather than talking about them as proposals for fiat change. &nbs= p;If=20
your change is sufficiently non-evolutionary that it cannot be=20
introduced by usage without explanation (or maybe with minimal=20
explanation entirely in Lojban), it probably won't catch on.

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/-/1b= 0emrKQf-8J.
=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_715_1581955.1356936016522--