Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 216.39.63.245 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.39.63.245;
References: <53760BA6.60403@lojban.org>	<537B9635.4000805@lojban.org> <4J5q1o02W56Cr6M01J5sb1> <537BA1C0.8060003@lojban.org>
Message-ID: <1400622566.26839.YahooMailNeo@web181104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 14:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: "'John E Clifford' via lojban" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] the future of Lojban's leadership
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <537BA1C0.8060003@lojban.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-482694697-1198449005-1400622566=:26839"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

---482694697-1198449005-1400622566=:26839
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This discussion reminds me of the obscurity or paradoxicality of the whole =
baseline project. The obscurity is:What is it to do? =A0The paradox comes f=
rom the usual answer: to determine the present state of the language. =A0Bu=
t, of course, the present state of the language is -- by definition -- just=
 that specified in CLL (after typos are corrected, discovered inaccurate st=
atements clarified, and the definitive version of xorlo added). =A0So, wher=
e is the research? =A0The escape from the paradox is to say that what is so=
ught is a report on what is currently accepted as Lojban (by whom is left s=
omewhat open -- perhaps the committee or Robin?). =A0But this goes against =
the whole point, since it involves a constantly shifting target and standar=
d: what goes uncriticized nowadays was once rejected or at least suspected,=
 so both the language as used and the tastes of the referees are in flux (a=
nd not guaranteed in agreement if there is more than one). =A0While no
 changes can be suggested, let alone approved, until the baseline is done, =
countless changes might be (and surely have been) made since the process be=
gan, almost all without discussion or approval by any body. =A0So, in what =
sense is what is to be described the Lojban(s since some changes have gone =
equally in several directions)? =A0In retrospect, it might have been better=
 to allow changes through a careful process from the get-go, building up a =
cumulative description as we went along. =A0There would then at least have =
been some control (beyond the annoying scolding that we can't suggest that =
yet, when the end of yet was clearly nowhere in sight and changes were goin=
g on all the time anyhow). =A0But we didn't do that.=A0
Lojbab has presented a different scenario, in effect. =A0CLL was not a spec=
ification, he says, and what the baseline is is a specification (it is not =
perfectly clear what that all means in the light of several -- unfortunatel=
y non-equivalent -- grammars). That is, apparently, that the baseline is to=
 fill out -- with examples and other commentary -- all the details that CLL=
 merely sketched in broad strokes (not a description that applies to CLL ve=
ry handily). =A0that is, the baseline project is to find out what CLL meant=
 -- or, rather, has come to mean -- to people who claim to using Lojban. =
=A0The problem is one of control again: if CLL was not specific, then there=
 are a range of possible meanings and how are we to decide which one is rig=
ht? =A0That is, establishing the baseline is already doing what the baselin=
e was to serve as basis for: establishing changes in the language. =A0And s=
o the circle goes on. The most we can actually do is report on what users
 actually do (somehow skipping mistakes of various sorts) and come up with =
a description of a =A0Lojban (or several), but not of Lojban. =A0Until some=
one declares that one of the things come up with is the real thing, which w=
ill ot be a unanimous decision, of course, since it will not be either CLL =
Lojban (which it turns out did not exist as such) or a new version arrived =
at in an approved way.
All that being the case, some body, consisting of people who actually do th=
e work, needs to do something along the lines laid out over the decades -- =
or along some other effective lines. =A0Or we can go on as a squabbling gro=
up, boasting about a language we don't have, with properties what we do hav=
e doesn't have, recruiting (under somewhat false pretences) ever more peopl=
e who deviate ever further from a nonexistent norm. =A0Well, that is a lang=
uage, after all, though not quite what anyone seems to have in mind.
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 1:42 PM, "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder -=
 LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
=20


On 5/20/2014 2:05 PM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> Otherwise I again agree with Lojbab that first we need the stuff done.
> I'm not sure the current BPFK Sections in the wiki are a good place for
> finishing the baseline. I'd prefer one single document, e.g. "CLL,
> service edition, alpha version, only for BPFK and with lots of mistypes"
> rather than a bunch of mostly not-connected pages in the wiki.

The concept of the BPFK sections is to have a standard=20
specification-type format, ideally supported with references to text=20
and/or discussions of anything controversial.=A0 CLL is not written as a=20
specification - rather it was an explanatory document.=A0 One chapter, the=
=20
selma'o catalog near the end is a pared down version of the originally=20
intended specification, but John Cowan couldn't figure out how to write=20
such a document absent a dictionary, and an overview of the grammar.

Once CLL was done, the questions seemed to be of the sort that could=20
only be answered by a document such as the BPFK sections (though various=20
other intermediate products were envisioned to document the discussions=20
and controversies - search the archives for the "elephant" which was=20
John's version of such an intermediate.

I believe that most of what hasn't been documented at all, are the=20
sections which have little controversy, as to what the status quo ante=20
actually is (or which had seen little usage ante-BPFK, so no one knew=20
whether there was controversy).

Having the language documented as a specification, makes it much easier=20
to revise CLL as an explanation of the key elements of the specification=20
(there is no need for CLL to have examples of every kind of sumti used=20
as a termset, while arguably such would appear in the BPFK sections for=20
termset cmavo showing the interaction of various elements.)

The other thing to bear in mind is that CLL is a book currently in=20
publication.=A0 If we don't have an agreed-upon replacement when we run=20
out of copies, we will return to the state that existed a few months ago=20
when Amazon.com ran out of copies.=A0 The book is considered=20
"out-of-print" (and many will therefore think that the language is as=20
"dead" as Volapuk no matter how large the online community), and various=20
profit-seekers advertise copies of the book for hundreds of dollars.

Thus CLL needs to be updated as a book to be published independently and=20
possibly asynchronously of the formal language=20
specification/configuration management process (which need not be=20
concerned with issues like formatting, pagination, and indexing that are=20
important in a book rather than a set of web pages)


lojbab

--=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/d/optout.

--=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/d/optout.

---482694697-1198449005-1400622566=:26839
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body><div style=3D"color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:He=
lveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;fo=
nt-size:12pt"><div><span>This discussion reminds me of the obscurity or par=
adoxicality of the whole baseline project. The obscurity is:What is it to d=
o? &nbsp;The paradox comes from the usual answer: to determine the present =
state of the language. &nbsp;But, of course, the present state of the langu=
age is -- by definition -- just that specified in CLL (after typos are corr=
ected, discovered inaccurate statements clarified, and the definitive versi=
on of xorlo added). &nbsp;So, where is the research? &nbsp;The escape from =
the paradox is to say that what is sought is a report on what is currently =
accepted as Lojban (by whom is left somewhat open -- perhaps the committee =
or Robin?). &nbsp;But this goes against the whole point, since it involves =
a constantly shifting target and standard: what goes uncriticized
 nowadays was once rejected or at least suspected, so both the language as =
used and the tastes of the referees are in flux (and not guaranteed in agre=
ement if there is more than one). &nbsp;While no changes can be suggested, =
let alone approved, until the baseline is done, countless changes might be =
(and surely have been) made since the process began, almost all without dis=
cussion or approval by any body. &nbsp;So, in what sense is what is to be d=
escribed the Lojban(s since some changes have gone equally in several direc=
tions)? &nbsp;In retrospect, it might have been better to allow changes thr=
ough a careful process from the get-go, building up a cumulative descriptio=
n as we went along. &nbsp;There would then at least have been some control =
(beyond the annoying scolding that we can't suggest that yet, when the end =
of yet was clearly nowhere in sight and changes were going on all the time =
anyhow). &nbsp;But we didn't do that.&nbsp;</span></div><div
 style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue,=
 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; backgroun=
d-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span>Lojbab has presented a dif=
ferent scenario, in effect. &nbsp;CLL was not a specification, he says, and=
 what the baseline is is a specification (it is not perfectly clear what th=
at all means in the light of several -- unfortunately non-equivalent -- gra=
mmars). That is, apparently, that the baseline is to fill out -- with examp=
les and other commentary -- all the details that CLL merely sketched in bro=
ad strokes (not a description that applies to CLL very handily). &nbsp;that=
 is, the baseline project is to find out what CLL meant -- or, rather, has =
come to mean -- to people who claim to using Lojban. &nbsp;The problem is o=
ne of control again: if CLL was not specific, then there are a range of pos=
sible meanings and how are we to decide which one is right? &nbsp;That
 is, establishing the baseline is already doing what the baseline was to se=
rve as basis for: establishing changes in the language. &nbsp;And so the ci=
rcle goes on. The most we can actually do is report on what users actually =
do (somehow skipping mistakes of various sorts) and come up with a descript=
ion of a &nbsp;Lojban (or several), but not of Lojban. &nbsp;Until someone =
declares that one of the things come up with is the real thing, which will =
ot be a unanimous decision, of course, since it will not be either CLL Lojb=
an (which it turns out did not exist as such) or a new version arrived at i=
n an approved way.</span></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size=
: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lu=
cida Grande', sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal=
;"><span>All that being the case, some body, consisting of people who actua=
lly do the work, needs to do something along the lines laid out over
 the decades -- or along some other effective lines. &nbsp;Or we can go on =
as a squabbling group, boasting about a language we don't have, with proper=
ties what we do have doesn't have, recruiting (under somewhat false pretenc=
es) ever more people who deviate ever further from a nonexistent norm. &nbs=
p;Well, that is a language, after all, though not quite what anyone seems t=
o have in mind.</span></div><div class=3D"yahoo_quoted" style=3D"display: b=
lock;"> <div style=3D"font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helveti=
ca, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style=3D"fo=
nt-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grand=
e', sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <font size=3D"2" face=
=3D"Arial"> On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 1:42 PM, "Bob LeChevalier, President a=
nd Founder - LLG" &lt;lojbab@lojban.org&gt; wrote:<br> </font> </div>  <br>=
<br> <div class=3D"y_msg_container">On 5/20/2014 2:05 PM, Gleki Arxokuna
 wrote:<br>&gt; Otherwise I again agree with Lojbab that first we need the =
stuff done.<br>&gt; I'm not sure the current BPFK Sections in the wiki are =
a good place for<br>&gt; finishing the baseline. I'd prefer one single docu=
ment, e.g. "CLL,<br>&gt; service edition, alpha version, only for BPFK and =
with lots of mistypes"<br>&gt; rather than a bunch of mostly not-connected =
pages in the wiki.<br><br>The concept of the BPFK sections is to have a sta=
ndard <br>specification-type format, ideally supported with references to t=
ext <br>and/or discussions of anything controversial.&nbsp; CLL is not writ=
ten as a <br>specification - rather it was an explanatory document.&nbsp; O=
ne chapter, the <br>selma'o catalog near the end is a pared down version of=
 the originally <br>intended specification, but John Cowan couldn't figure =
out how to write <br>such a document absent a dictionary, and an overview o=
f the grammar.<br><br>Once CLL was done, the questions seemed to be
 of the sort that could <br>only be answered by a document such as the BPFK=
 sections (though various <br>other intermediate products were envisioned t=
o document the discussions <br>and controversies - search the archives for =
the "elephant" which was <br>John's version of such an intermediate.<br><br=
>I believe that most of what hasn't been documented at all, are the <br>sec=
tions which have little controversy, as to what the status quo ante <br>act=
ually is (or which had seen little usage ante-BPFK, so no one knew <br>whet=
her there was controversy).<br><br>Having the language documented as a spec=
ification, makes it much easier <br>to revise CLL as an explanation of the =
key elements of the specification <br>(there is no need for CLL to have exa=
mples of every kind of sumti used <br>as a termset, while arguably such wou=
ld appear in the BPFK sections for <br>termset cmavo showing the interactio=
n of various elements.)<br><br>The other thing to bear in mind is
 that CLL is a book currently in <br>publication.&nbsp; If we don't have an=
 agreed-upon replacement when we run <br>out of copies, we will return to t=
he state that existed a few months ago <br>when Amazon.com ran out of copie=
s.&nbsp; The book is considered <br>"out-of-print" (and many will therefore=
 think that the language is as <br>"dead" as Volapuk no matter how large th=
e online community), and various <br>profit-seekers advertise copies of the=
 book for hundreds of dollars.<br><br>Thus CLL needs to be updated as a boo=
k to be published independently and <br>possibly asynchronously of the form=
al language <br>specification/configuration management process (which need =
not be <br>concerned with issues like formatting, pagination, and indexing =
that are <br>important in a book rather than a set of web pages)<br><br><br=
>lojbab<br><br>-- <br>You received this message because you are subscribed =
to the Google Groups "lojban" group.<br>To unsubscribe from this
 group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+<a ymailt=
o=3D"mailto:unsubscribe@googlegroups.com." href=3D"mailto:unsubscribe@googl=
egroups.com.">unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.</a><br>To post to this group, s=
end email to <a ymailto=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com." href=3D"mailto:=
lojban@googlegroups.com.">lojban@googlegroups.com.</a><br>Visit this group =
at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.<br>For more options, visit https:=
//groups.google.com/d/optout.<br><br><br></div>  </div> </div>  </div> </di=
v></body></html>

<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 <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@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">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

---482694697-1198449005-1400622566=:26839--