Received: from mail-fa0-f63.google.com ([209.85.161.63]:55784) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UepCB-0004Og-L4 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 21 May 2013 09:14:04 -0700 Received: by mail-fa0-f63.google.com with SMTP id v1sf107025fav.28 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 09:13:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-beenthere:x-authenticated:x-provags-id:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-y-gmx-trusted: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=bPUkiAtI1draorKKI/kA+TyWG0Vavauo50GPhrYpntI=; b=U0FK0ZvUgXRnmFq7eSpfCB5uaZE1eulZkFLQIKaRCif/vPAuTcJXPcu3jxNvSvwOAE gvDud6qBts7IZpNtaTA7YyoXihNzKwXJB412VoBqiOQijcIq/y0sqnDVthYg5ql1gBIi wFf12xIBj294umNZOkdJaWwVV0Itcvl5/zmOIzaY5EKPA07YeKq4GPesPLpbzqCyAQeQ Ks9+gw7MZSq/C9Nw90naOXI9WgPE1mEB1Be5AFmxZ5rmu5KXpJ1EsJxtEtF/1Lgu+IyN hhe9HhnAU0pvuhYjCdGVlceGlPrt2BY6EwcXFcHtM3SZ7GaY9idQ44VlbhAbtjWDZGJG EsqA== X-Received: by 10.180.208.114 with SMTP id md18mr215546wic.9.1369152823687; Tue, 21 May 2013 09:13:43 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.36.231 with SMTP id t7ls135228wij.32.canary; Tue, 21 May 2013 09:13:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.14.95.130 with SMTP id p2mr3599662eef.6.1369152823124; Tue, 21 May 2013 09:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net. [212.227.15.18]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id o5si809824eew.0.2013.05.21.09.13.43 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 09:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.18; Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.1]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MB0kk-1UokoE3e6e-009x7h for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 18:13:42 +0200 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 May 2013 16:13:42 -0000 Received: from p54AF4323.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.2.100]) [84.175.67.35] by mail.gmx.net (mp001) with SMTP; 21 May 2013 18:13:42 +0200 X-Authenticated: #54293076 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/buMVuDffbZOOoHc3ktc/NZA1b/qufxKP8/S8KnA nJq54gKx23qCZc Message-ID: <519B9D34.3010704@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 18:13:40 +0200 From: selpa'i User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] questions about lojban References: <20130520214048.GA3114@samsa.fritz.box> <20130520221213.GB3114@samsa.fritz.box> <519B59B4.8020404@lojban.org> <519B8B71.90800@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Original-Sender: seladwa@gmx.de X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=seladwa@gmx.de 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="------------090605000709050206060409" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 1 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: la .aionys. cu cusku di'e > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:57 AM, selpa'i > wrote: > > la .aionys. cu cusku di'e >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:55 AM, selpa'i > > wrote: >> >> On 21.05.2013 13 :25, Robert LeChevalier >> wrote: >> >> selpa'i wrote: >> >> That's exactly the part that got changed in December >> 2011, when the >> sentence "When an outer quantifier is used without an >> inner quantifier, >> ''lo'' can be omitted." was removed. This means that >> "PA broda = PA lo >> broda" *was* part of the original BPFK-approved >> proposal from '04. (the >> recent change wasn't followed by another round of >> voting of course) >> >> >> Who had the authority to make such a change? >> >> >> xorxes made that change after being asked to do so. I think >> PC was complaining. >> >> >> If it isn't voted on, the change is not official, and as >> you can see, >> people won't understand what you mean. That is WHY it is >> supposed to >> be hard to make changes, and why they are supposed to be >> strictly >> controlled. >> >> >> Of course, but there is no institution left to vote on such >> things right now, is there? >> >> >> Yes, there is. It's called the BPFK. > > The BPFK is out of business, that was my point. The BPFK is not in > a state where it can vote. > "Yes, there was. It was called the BPFK." > > > Yes it is. Post something that needs voting on to the list, those > members who care will vote, those members who do not care will > abstain. Voting is not a difficult thing. [...] Content analysis details: (0.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (seladwa[at]gmx.de) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090605000709050206060409 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed la .aionys. cu cusku di'e > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:57 AM, selpa'i > wrote: > > la .aionys. cu cusku di'e >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:55 AM, selpa'i > > wrote: >> >> On 21.05.2013 13 :25, Robert LeChevalier >> wrote: >> >> selpa'i wrote: >> >> That's exactly the part that got changed in December >> 2011, when the >> sentence "When an outer quantifier is used without an >> inner quantifier, >> ''lo'' can be omitted." was removed. This means that >> "PA broda = PA lo >> broda" *was* part of the original BPFK-approved >> proposal from '04. (the >> recent change wasn't followed by another round of >> voting of course) >> >> >> Who had the authority to make such a change? >> >> >> xorxes made that change after being asked to do so. I think >> PC was complaining. >> >> >> If it isn't voted on, the change is not official, and as >> you can see, >> people won't understand what you mean. That is WHY it is >> supposed to >> be hard to make changes, and why they are supposed to be >> strictly >> controlled. >> >> >> Of course, but there is no institution left to vote on such >> things right now, is there? >> >> >> Yes, there is. It's called the BPFK. > > The BPFK is out of business, that was my point. The BPFK is not in > a state where it can vote. > "Yes, there was. It was called the BPFK." > > > Yes it is. Post something that needs voting on to the list, those > members who care will vote, those members who do not care will > abstain. Voting is not a difficult thing. The members who are allowed to vote are not as active in the community as they used to be and new active members now exist who aren't allowed to vote even though I'd say their opinion should matter. That's why I don't think the (current) BPFK can still be justifiably given the status you want it to have. > Not active is not dead. What's the practical difference between eternal coma and death? You're not gonna get much done either way. > There's nothing for the BPFK to do as long as the language freeze > exists beyond doing that which is required to lift the freeze- > documenting the language as is. The fact that documenting the language > is dull and dreary grunt work that quickly makes anyone who is doing > desire to do something else Hmm... it sounds like a lot of fun to me. > , and that therefore no one, BPFK member or not, is working on it, > does not make the BPFK dead. The problem I see is the phrase "the language as is". If anything, it should be "the langauge as was", since nobody is still using all the old definitions. I see little use in defining a given CLL cmavo when it's so obvious that the cmavo already has taken on a new meaning. It's just such a waste of time and energy. However, defining the language as it is actually currently being used (or how people want it to be used); *that*, to me, seems a fun task, and much more worthwhile. mu'o mi'e la selpa'i -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. --------------090605000709050206060409 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
la .aionys. cu cusku di'e
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:57 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
la .aionys. cu cusku di'e
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:55 AM, selpa'i <m3o@plasmatix.com> wrote:
On 21.05.2013 13:25, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
selpa'i wrote:
That's exactly the part that got changed in December 2011, when the
sentence "When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier,
''lo'' can be omitted." was removed. This means that "PA broda = PA lo
broda" *was* part of the original BPFK-approved proposal from '04. (the
recent change wasn't followed by another round of voting of course)

Who had the authority to make such a change?

xorxes made that change after being asked to do so. I think PC was complaining.


If it isn't voted on, the change is not official, and as you can see,
people won't understand what you mean. That is WHY it is supposed to
be hard to make changes, and why they are supposed to be strictly
controlled.

Of course, but there is no institution left to vote on such things right now, is there?

Yes, there is. It's called the BPFK.

The BPFK is out of business, that was my point. The BPFK is not in a state where it can vote.
"Yes, there was. It was called the BPFK."

Yes it is. Post something that needs voting on to the list, those members who care will vote, those members who do not care will abstain. Voting is not a difficult thing.

The members who are allowed to vote are not as active in the community as they used to be and new active members now exist who aren't allowed to vote even though I'd say their opinion should matter. That's why I don't think the (current) BPFK can still be justifiably given the status you want it to have.

Not active is not dead.

What's the practical difference between eternal coma and death? You're not gonna get much done either way.

There's nothing for the BPFK to do as long as the language freeze exists beyond doing that which is required to lift the freeze- documenting the language as is. The fact that documenting the language is dull and dreary grunt work that quickly makes anyone who is doing desire to do something else

Hmm... it sounds like a lot of fun to me.

, and that therefore no one, BPFK member or not, is working on it, does not make the BPFK dead.

The problem I see is the phrase "the language as is". If anything, it should be "the langauge as was", since nobody is still using all the old definitions. I see little use in defining a given CLL cmavo when it's so obvious that the cmavo already has taken on a new meaning. It's just such a waste of time and energy.
However, defining the language as it is actually currently being used (or how people want it to be used); *that*, to me, seems a fun task, and much more worthwhile.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
--------------090605000709050206060409--