Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c03::229;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20131206074058.524db1e8@aol.com>
References: <529EA55C.40800@kli.org>
	<20131204145028.65d8aa5f@aol.com>
	<CALm==BXJQEwKxBhdjhTT8d+Dw5tMHJF048jGk4bs1A-ogW6VBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131206074058.524db1e8@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:52:46 -0200
Message-ID: <CALMa68os-PfD31GO0R6Y03BN2RLVsfO0GEQXrxr-RY6D+ux61g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Alice essay
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba2121990e1d4404ecddf60e
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--90e6ba2121990e1d4404ecddf60e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Just on a general, but important, note, I believe it is quite inappropriate
to go on and call patterns used in the translation "mistakes" straightaway.
Their systematicity, for one, are good indication that they are the result
of a conscious choice; and you should not assume that that this choice is
the result of a lack of understanding of lojban.

Similarly, the existence of many lujvo not defined in the dictionary
suggests a need on dictionary work, not a problem with the text, which,
putting the word to real usage, is already a precious contribution. It is
exciting that we have the opportunity to collaborate with the author and
document the definitions for the new words, resolving its details.

Whether "la .alis." should be considered lojban or a dialect of lojban or
something like that is for us to decide, but let us consider how the
attitude of disregarding relevant work as "not truthfully lojban" may
produce either a bunch of people, each with their own personal lojban, and
strong views about why they are right, or a community of blind worshipers
of a very precise and sterile language specification.

I don't see anything wrong with language discussions, and I think any
published work should be subject to public critique. I just propose we
approach cultural work with some openness and respect. The hidden evil we
may not be aware of in confusing style and mistakes, regardless of
offending someone or not, is that it is counter-productive. It opens up the
possibility for a conscientious effort in lojban production to be rejected
by a bunch of English words.

I too have my hundreds of notes about the idioms and style of the work,
upon which I intend to reflect, and rethink my own lojban expression in
response to them. I may discuss a usage with xorxes if I feel I don't
understand his thought behind it well enough, or if I want feedback about
my own ideas. In any case, if I ultimately dislike some aspect of his
style, the only response I can give is by producing new material and seeing
if people adopt my own. This is the way of culture, and I would rather
appreciate that lojban had a more prolific one.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

P.S. Sorry for contributing to the thread digression...


On 6 December 2013 04:40, Wuzzy <almikes@aol.com> wrote:

> Okay, I reread the relevant CLL sections and quickly overlooked the new
> version. The most serious mistakes are already gone or don=92t apply:
> - The spelling mistakes (mostly about misspelled gismu) are gone.
> - I was indeed totally wrong about =93sai=94. So =85 forget that. :D
> - =93ka'enai=94 is gone.
> - =93=92=94 is not used anymore, only =93'=94.
> - Sorry for adding some obvious lujvo to the list, like the -gau ones.
> You=92re right that it=92s awkward to list them and I also was aware that
> -gau etc. have established rules. I just forgot to filter the list
> throughly.
> It turns out I had a really old copy on my disk. Whoops.
>
> But this does not mean my entire post is invalid:
> - sumti raising is still used. Seriously, guys, I don=92t really see a
> reason to ignore the intended place structure; one could use =93tu'a=94 o=
r
> coin a new brivla or whatever to resolve these issues.
> - =93KREFU=94 is still used and still wrong=97wheather I am a nitpicker o=
r
> not. This has nothing to do with alternative orthographies, since the
> text uses the standard alphabet. And the word is in all-caps for no
> apparent reason. What does =93KREFU=94, in contrast of =93krefu=94, even =
mean?
> And believe it or not, I am not an opponent of alternative
> orthographies.
> - Even after removing the obvious lujvo, there still remain some
> non-obvious lujvo. Two of the =93gasnu=94 and =93binxo=94 lujvo are still=
 not
> obvious.
> - It would still be better if those 3 fu'ivla had dictionary entries.
> Figuring out fu'ivla from scratch may be impossible if you don=92t know
> the source language. For =93cipnrxakuila=94, I was not able to figure out
> without looking into the original Alice text.
> - The po'onai =93definition=94 consists of a parenthesis inside a vague
> note which is an proposal for an unfinished proposal. I suppose this is
> not the best source to discuss semantics. ;-) I seem to get the point
> here, but clearly the po'onai definition has to be refined.
> - =93lu=94=85=93li'u=94 still missing. Damning or not, not using the quot=
es
> changes the sense of the sentences. Try to read the text aloud, maybe
> you=92ll see (or hear) the problem here. Indentation other other
> typographic conventions should never replace words in Lojban.
>
> PS: =93ka'enai=94 is indeed not grammatical, because it is not allowed to
> construct =93CAhA NAI=94 according to the YACC. Unless you can show me vi=
a
> the YACC that =93ka'enai=94 *is* grammatical, I will stand my ground. Ask
> lojbab if you=92re still not convinced.
>
> PPS: WTF? There are seriously people who oppose a lujvo dictionary?
> Man. That=92s a very stupid idea. It=92s so stupid, I may write another
> e-mail about it.
>
> =3D=3D Appendix =3D=3D
> After removing further obvious lujvo, these undefined brivla remain:
> - clazengau             (not obvious, since =93claze'a=94 is undefined)
> - dutselfarbi'o         (not obvious, =93dutselfa'a=94 is undefined)
> - gunkybifce
> - re'azbil
> - kakcmo
> - cfafanmo
> - benxai
> - flara'a
> - kixsku
> - xersku
> - jetsku
> - cfacku
> - dzikla
> - galvi'a
> - titydja
> - geirkrixa
> - zbikre
> - dricmo
> - ricmei
> - gerpanzi
> - proki'u
> - nolpratra
> - cabycerni
> - sezmerli
> - jaurjanci
> - jmaji'o
> - vruva'u
> - gapfa'a
> - purcedra              (sounds like =93history=94; not sure)
> - xersmadi
> - daupro
> - sipfru
> - fagystizu
> - gerpanzi              (dog-child?)
> - posycu'a
> - sincycau
> - fityti'i
> - stuzrlongitudi        (longitude?)
> - stuzrlatitudi         (latitude?)
> - rirxyxirma            (hippo? but which species?)
> - cipnrxakuila          (eagle? but which species?)
> - tcicymlatu            (obviously that=92s the chesire cat, this one
>                          may be an exception)
>
> --
> 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.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

--=20
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 e=
mail 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--90e6ba2121990e1d4404ecddf60e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Just on a general, but important, note, I believe it =
is quite inappropriate to go on and call patterns used in the translation &=
quot;mistakes&quot; straightaway. Their systematicity, for one, are good in=
dication that they are the result of a conscious choice; and you should not=
 assume that that this choice is the result of a lack of understanding of l=
ojban.<br>
<br></div>Similarly, the existence of many lujvo not defined in the diction=
ary suggests a need on dictionary work, not a problem with the text, which,=
 putting the word to real usage, is already a precious contribution. It is =
exciting that we have the opportunity to collaborate with the author and do=
cument the definitions for the new words, resolving its details.<br>
<br>Whether &quot;la .alis.&quot; should be considered lojban or a dialect =
of lojban or something like that is for us to decide, but let us consider h=
ow the attitude of disregarding relevant work as &quot;not truthfully lojba=
n&quot; may produce either a bunch of people, each with their own personal =
lojban, and strong views about why they are right, or a community of blind =
worshipers of a very precise and sterile language specification.<br>
<br>I don&#39;t see anything wrong with language discussions, and I think a=
ny published work should be subject to public critique. I just propose we a=
pproach cultural work with some openness and respect. The hidden evil we ma=
y not be aware of in confusing style and mistakes, regardless of offending =
someone or not, is that it is counter-productive. It opens up the possibili=
ty for a conscientious effort in lojban production to be rejected by a bunc=
h of English words.<br>
<br>I too have my hundreds of notes about the idioms and=20
style of the work, upon which I intend to reflect, and rethink my own=20
lojban expression in response to them. I may discuss a usage with xorxes
 if I feel I don&#39;t understand his thought behind it well enough, or if =
I
 want feedback about my own ideas. In any case, if I ultimately dislike=20
some aspect of his style, the only response I can give is by producing=20
new material and seeing if people adopt my own. This is the way of=20
culture, and I would rather appreciate that lojban had a more prolific=20
one.<br><br>mu&#39;o<br>mi&#39;e .asiz.<br><br><div>P.S. Sorry for contribu=
ting to the thread digression...<br><br>
</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">O=
n 6 December 2013 04:40, Wuzzy <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:almi=
kes@aol.com" target=3D"_blank">almikes@aol.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #=
ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Okay, I reread the relevant CLL sections and quickly overlooked the new<br>
version. The most serious mistakes are already gone or don=92t apply:<br>
- The spelling mistakes (mostly about misspelled gismu) are gone.<br>
- I was indeed totally wrong about =93sai=94. So =85 forget that. :D<br>
- =93ka&#39;enai=94 is gone.<br>
- =93=92=94 is not used anymore, only =93&#39;=94.<br>
- Sorry for adding some obvious lujvo to the list, like the -gau ones.<br>
You=92re right that it=92s awkward to list them and I also was aware that<b=
r>
-gau etc. have established rules. I just forgot to filter the list<br>
throughly.<br>
It turns out I had a really old copy on my disk. Whoops.<br>
<br>
But this does not mean my entire post is invalid:<br>
- sumti raising is still used. Seriously, guys, I don=92t really see a<br>
reason to ignore the intended place structure; one could use =93tu&#39;a=94=
 or<br>
coin a new brivla or whatever to resolve these issues.<br>
- =93KREFU=94 is still used and still wrong=97wheather I am a nitpicker or<=
br>
not. This has nothing to do with alternative orthographies, since the<br>
text uses the standard alphabet. And the word is in all-caps for no<br>
apparent reason. What does =93KREFU=94, in contrast of =93krefu=94, even me=
an?<br>
And believe it or not, I am not an opponent of alternative<br>
orthographies.<br>
- Even after removing the obvious lujvo, there still remain some<br>
non-obvious lujvo. Two of the =93gasnu=94 and =93binxo=94 lujvo are still n=
ot<br>
obvious.<br>
- It would still be better if those 3 fu&#39;ivla had dictionary entries.<b=
r>
Figuring out fu&#39;ivla from scratch may be impossible if you don=92t know=
<br>
the source language. For =93cipnrxakuila=94, I was not able to figure out<b=
r>
without looking into the original Alice text.<br>
- The po&#39;onai =93definition=94 consists of a parenthesis inside a vague=
<br>
note which is an proposal for an unfinished proposal. I suppose this is<br>
not the best source to discuss semantics. ;-) I seem to get the point<br>
here, but clearly the po&#39;onai definition has to be refined.<br>
- =93lu=94=85=93li&#39;u=94 still missing. Damning or not, not using the qu=
otes<br>
changes the sense of the sentences. Try to read the text aloud, maybe<br>
you=92ll see (or hear) the problem here. Indentation other other<br>
typographic conventions should never replace words in Lojban.<br>
<br>
PS: =93ka&#39;enai=94 is indeed not grammatical, because it is not allowed =
to<br>
construct =93CAhA NAI=94 according to the YACC. Unless you can show me via<=
br>
the YACC that =93ka&#39;enai=94 *is* grammatical, I will stand my ground. A=
sk<br>
lojbab if you=92re still not convinced.<br>
<br>
PPS: WTF? There are seriously people who oppose a lujvo dictionary?<br>
Man. That=92s a very stupid idea. It=92s so stupid, I may write another<br>
e-mail about it.<br>
<br>
=3D=3D Appendix =3D=3D<br>
After removing further obvious lujvo, these undefined brivla remain:<br>
- clazengau =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (not obvious, since =93claze&#39;a=94 i=
s undefined)<br>
- dutselfarbi&#39;o =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (not obvious, =93dutselfa&#39;a=94 is u=
ndefined)<br>
<div class=3D"im">- gunkybifce<br>
- re&#39;azbil<br>
- kakcmo<br>
- cfafanmo<br>
- benxai<br>
- flara&#39;a<br>
- kixsku<br>
- xersku<br>
- jetsku<br>
- cfacku<br>
- dzikla<br>
</div><div class=3D"im">- galvi&#39;a<br>
- titydja<br>
- geirkrixa<br>
- zbikre<br>
- dricmo<br>
- ricmei<br>
- gerpanzi<br>
- proki&#39;u<br>
- nolpratra<br>
- cabycerni<br>
- sezmerli<br>
- jaurjanci<br>
- jmaji&#39;o<br>
- vruva&#39;u<br>
- gapfa&#39;a<br>
- purcedra =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(sounds like =93history=94; not sure)=
<br>
</div>- xersmadi<br>
- daupro<br>
<div class=3D"im HOEnZb">- sipfru<br>
- fagystizu<br>
- gerpanzi =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(dog-child?)<br>
- posycu&#39;a<br>
- sincycau<br>
- fityti&#39;i<br>
- stuzrlongitudi =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(longitude?)<br>
- stuzrlatitudi =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (latitude?)<br>
- rirxyxirma =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(hippo? but which species?)<br>
- cipnrxakuila =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(eagle? but which species?)<br>
- tcicymlatu =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(obviously that=92s the chesire cat, th=
is one<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0may be an exception)<br>
<br>
</div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">--<br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+uns=
ubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban" targe=
t=3D"_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

--90e6ba2121990e1d4404ecddf60e--