Received: from mail-oa0-f62.google.com ([209.85.219.62]:50668)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBDPLXXOJVIKBBENNQ6DQKGQEJEKK6II@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Tpjuz-00048p-Cj; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:17:10 -0800
Received: by mail-oa0-f62.google.com with SMTP id h2sf7635344oag.7
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:16:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:x-received: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=J4XGZSEcpSpAbyVFG6tR7LFADfBMLhu5XrBMN+AxLCo=;
        b=IWAIwRSpX/PEvjVQt6PXFZzWVtHFsxsrwd76JNPc2t3F9GSrhcw9YCuvEokUOpwsL+
         Y05r1pR0Xeai4v+mt9yP5KRtxZgw4ReuvZ7ceo2PaBGPhtNzIFaPyAx78vIJnY2g9CAR
         R0GrxPs3pLjwAiNKT7ACRbIc0SlZsz5pmDlREynDp034L+Q6rFbk/tjrTT42JH+v8vMs
         iIAlCkwR8yv93jl/iIBPHjJE5yQGmYxszD5uSAbKsaQ94pD/K0HlYYbE0Dt8BmnwVDd9
         OPa+Q7PRPCLflnZ57AmJHoA54cTQadMY+DvqyZuIba3fqPIdCyKZya29rKEmqwL6Bec5
         j3RQ==
X-Received: by 10.49.48.41 with SMTP id i9mr6170260qen.36.1356977810831;
        Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:16:50 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.49.117.167 with SMTP id kf7ls5645146qeb.40.gmail; Mon, 31 Dec
 2012 10:16:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.58.68.162 with SMTP id x2mr19381635vet.5.1356977809320;
        Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:16:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.58.68.162 with SMTP id x2mr19381634vet.5.1356977809307;
        Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:16:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eastrmfepo102.cox.net (eastrmfepo102.cox.net. [68.230.241.214])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id d17si12904089vdt.1.2012.12.31.10.16.49;
        Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:16:49 -0800 (PST)
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;
Received: from eastrmimpo209 ([68.230.241.224]) by eastrmfepo102.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP
          id <20121231181648.SGMD18834.eastrmfepo102.cox.net@eastrmimpo209>
          for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:16:48 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([98.169.148.216])
	by eastrmimpo209 with cox
	id iJGo1k0084gNKFm01JGoyh; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:16:48 -0500
X-CT-Class: Clean
X-CT-Score: 0.00
X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020207.50E1D690.00E5,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0
X-CT-Spam: 0
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=E5JPVNhl c=1 sm=1
 a=oMUrf2L0cPa+6Alu0knKiQ==:17 a=YsUzL_8ObRgA:10 a=IPHh7_3Ra0sA:10
 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=aB2t1-zLDNoA:10
 a=8pif782wAAAA:8 a=drpGMm4mX5hXiNcY5wsA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10
 a=NfLVKFOV5QibgI7Y:21 a=bYI9tZUHZfXPcVxA:21 a=oMUrf2L0cPa+6Alu0knKiQ==:117
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Message-ID: <50E1D690.6030205@lojban.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:16:48 -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] CLL 1.1/ CLL 2.0. What is your opinion in the current situation?
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> <CAMKwHj2WkyJHuG13rVE37=MY6mw5oFGouAvP1PL0RVFMhv9ruA@mail.gmail.com> <20121228185329.GO18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121228215107.GR7855@samsa.fritz.box> <50DEF2D2.6080309@lojban.org> <CAMKwHj17WQ=PUCwX20EmakosGZB+eTOvO7v-dXEKfG7LJk61KQ@mail.gmail.com> <50E04A0F.8080408@lojban.org> <80850efe-706f-4afe-8788-77fd6daa6b59@googlegroups.com> <50E05EB8.5040104@lojban.org> <fac6268c-88bb-48ed-988d-7cfd214a6f08@googlegroups.com> <50E0CF4C.1020705@lojban.org> <cd3d2ead-784e-4d8f-b857-33ec442591ab@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <cd3d2ead-784e-4d8f-b857-33ec442591ab@googlegroups.com>
X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
 68.230.241.214 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: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la gleki wrote:
>     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?

By existing.  As most languages do.

There is no universal that I know of stating that languages must have 
"defined systems of subjunctives".

Subjunctive is an important feature of Romance languages, and is found 
in some other IE languages, but isn't common outside IE.  The concept is 
almost completely fossilized in English (so while there is such a 
concept embedded in parts of the language, it isn't especially 
productive and thus useful only in explaining these fossilized exceptions).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrealis_mood
"Every language has a formula for the unreal."

That is the universal, and it doesn't require a "system".
We have da'i for an explicit irrealis marker. Others might be understood 
as irrealis (.ianai)  XOR and other logical constructs REQUIRE that some 
of the clauses therein are false.  There are other Lojban usages that 
mimic some of the moods mentioned on that Wikipedia page that are 
specific to other languages.

The entire novel "Alice in Wonderland" was translated into Lojban, and 
it is about as "unreal" as can be.  If a subjunctive was necessary for 
such a translation (note that I did NOT use the subjunctive "were", 
which is no longer necessary in English), we would have already had to 
add it.


> Subjunctives are absent in Lojban. It's not a change.

Of course it is.  Adding to the language is a change.  We've allowed for 
ad-hoc creation of new lujvo and fu'ivla, and left space for 
experimental cmavo, but there is no plan to formally adopt/approve any 
of them in the near future. (brivla that see lots of actual usage will 
of course eventually be added to dictionaries).

>      > 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?

No.  I said that cmavo definitions did not exist.  The cmavo list was 
created primarily for use in the LogFlash flashcard program (as was the 
gismu list).  Lacking an actual dictionary for these words, when the 
language was originally baselined, these lists became the effective 
"definitions".  But they were recognized to be completely inadequate.

I was for the longest time trying to write a dictionary, and couldn't 
figure out how to significantly improve on the list.  Cowan came up with 
the concept of a selma'o catalog, which became CLL, as one step.

CLL was the attempt to provide the grammatical portion of the 
definition, defining the selma'o.  byfy was tasked with devising the 
semantic definition of the cmavo, making reference to CLL as needed (and 
byfy assumed the additional task of correcting CLL of its own volition). 
  It was NOT tasked with adding to or deleting from the cmavo list, 
though likely some form of the byfy will eventually look at such 
questions AFTER the existing baseline is done, and byfy has the 
effective power to make changes if something in the language is so 
broken that the definition process cannot be completed without a change 
(this was the argument for xorlo).

It is the intent that such questions, when the come up, will be decided 
through usage. So making proposals that are not reflective of actual 
language usage is especially non-productive.

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.