Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 216.109.114.79 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.109.114.79;
References: <53760BA6.60403@lojban.org>	<537B9635.4000805@lojban.org> <4J5q1o02W56Cr6M01J5sb1> <537BA1C0.8060003@lojban.org> <4Mpj1o01J56Cr6M01Mpkl8> <537DEF7D.30903@lojban.org>
Message-ID: <1400768801.95048.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 07:26:41 -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: <537DEF7D.30903@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="-204173969-1722727573-1400768801=:95048"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

---204173969-1722727573-1400768801=:95048
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Nice to know that the project, despite all that has been said about it, is =
just writing adequate definitions for cmavo -- excluding, for now, I suppos=
e, all the experimental ones, but keeping all the established highly superf=
luous ones (cultural neutrality does NOT require that we can do anything an=
y language can do) and not changing the grammar to get rid of the redundant=
 ones. =A0The joker here seems to be the notion of an adequate definition, =
since all these words have definitions and even some commentary, not to men=
tion reams of discussion if there is anything controversial about them. =A0=
Surely the boring one just need a write-up and the non-boring ones a summar=
y.
Everybody take a word and spend a few minutes, then the whole thing will be=
 done and we can get on with changing everything. =A0[sarcasm]


On Thursday, May 22, 2014 7:37 AM, "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder =
- LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
=20


On 5/20/2014 5:49 PM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban wrote:
> This discussion reminds me of the obscurity or paradoxicality of the
> whole baseline project. The obscurity is:What is it to do?=A0 The paradox
> comes from the usual answer: to determine the present state of the
> language.=A0 But, of course, the present state of the language is -- by
> definition -- just that specified in CLL (after typos are corrected,
> discovered inaccurate statements clarified, and the definitive version
> of xorlo added).=A0 So, where is the research?

I'm not sure "research" is needed, per se.=A0 If it is, then it consists of=
:
Finding the typos, discovering the inaccurate statements, and figuring=20
out how to clarify them in ways that don't muddy some other point, and=20
coming up with a definitive statement of xorlo (which despite being=20
supposedly well-defined, keeps coming up as a topic of highly technical=20
questions).

Others might call this "simple editorial work".

> 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?).=A0 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 agreement if there is more than one).

Not guaranteed, which is why we did not require unanimity in voting.

> 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 discussion or approval by any body.

And all of them are unofficial, though a few might sneak in if they are=20
close to consistent with the wording so far, or if they apply to byfy=20
sections as yet unanalyzed.

> So, in
> what sense is what is to be described the Lojban(s since some changes
> have gone equally in several directions)?

If several directions, then one must be chosen.=A0 Otherwise, we have=20
schism, which most find unacceptable.

> In 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.

That is what was happening up until 1997 or so.=A0 But we couldn't produce=
=20
a dictionary or even a good selma'o catalog, because we couldn't come up=20
with dictionary-quality definitions of the cmavo.=A0 While I worked on the=
=20
gismu/lujvo portion of the dictionary, Cowan started to work on the=20
selma'o catalog which in turn would hopefully lead to the cmavo=20
definitions.=A0 He started with my tense and negation papers, which each=20
covered a small number of selma'o, and went on from there=A0 From=20
1994-1997 he wrote corresponding essays on all the chunks of the=20
language, incidentally generating 20-odd formal change proposals to the=20
grammar to respond to ambiguities and limitations (a couple of these=20
were changes actually proposed by others, but codified by Cowan).=A0 Those=
=20
change proposals, as they were accepted/approved by the community of=20
Lojban-List readers, were incorporated into the formal YACC grammar as=20
well as into his textual essays.=A0 Then the essays were collected into=20
CLL, with a cross-indexing "selma'o catalog" added as the last chapter.

But this still did not lead to definitions of each cmavo suitable for a=20
dictionary.=A0 And a couple of years after CLL was published, once the=20
community of users who had studied it grew to critical mass, people=20
started finding typos and undefined holes in what was described.=A0 But no=
=20
one followed Cowan's demonstrated procedures for formally proposing=20
changes, and no one wrote cmavo definitions.=A0 When I realized we had=20
passed 5 years of so-called baseline without even finalizing the cmavo=20
definitions, I got the Board (with membership approval) to pass the buck=20
to the BPFK.=A0 It's been more than 10 years now, I think.

Under Nick, the BPFK got the job partly done, but there was too much=20
pressure to finalize certain things before all the other sections were=20
done, and no one volunteered to shepherd the boring parts of the=20
language, which never did get done.=A0 Robin moved things much further=20
along, but still couldn't get people to tackle the most boring stuff.=20
We seem to be lacking the compulsive completists that Cowan, Nora,=20
Athelstan, Nick and myself were (and I should probably include you among=20
those, since in many ways this whole project - of completely codifying=20
the language - got started with your attempt to codify all of the Loglan=20
cmavo and selma'o on a set of pages that still graces my historical files).

> There would then
> at least have been some control (beyond the annoying scolding that we
> can't suggest that yet,

People can suggest anything they want, but they cannot be formally=20
decided without a formal change proposal which of necessity has to=20
include a statement of what the status quo is, which in turn requires=20
the status quo specification to be complete.

(People have made reference to software development in this discussion,=20
and the concept I am describing is taken from procedures that were=20
standard in most parts of the industry when I was working in it, and so=20
far as I know are still standard, albeit more automated.)

> when the end of yet was clearly nowhere in sight

The end has been in sight for a long time.=A0 The will to cover the=20
intervening distance hasn't been there since Cowan and I stopped leading=20
the effort.=A0 It seems to take a completist attitude.

I had the rather extreme ideal of Sir James Murray of OED fame, and a=20
couple of books on lexicography to give me guidance, but I simply=20
couldn't do that kind of job while doing all the rest of the Lojban,=20
jobs I was trying to do, especially while also parenting two young kids=20
(something Robin has similar discovered %^).=A0 Cowan did a splendid job=20
on CLL but has seemed to suffer burnout since then.=A0 Lots of others have=
=20
taken up the slack, but no one seems to have the drive to get it all done.

> Lojbab has presented a different scenario, in effect.=A0 CLL was not a
> specification, he says, and what the baseline is is a specification (it
> is not perfectly clear what that all means in the light of several --
> unfortunately non-equivalent -- grammars).

The baseline requires a specification defining ALL of the cmavo, because=20
that is what was still missing in 1997.=A0 The YACC grammar as published=20
in the appendix to CLL remains the standard for resolving any=20
non-equivalencies.

>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 very handily).

And in particular, to come up with dictionary-quality cmavo definitions,=20
so that we can combine cmavo and gismu and lujvo definitions along with=20
a formal grammar into a well-defined set of what people understood=20
originally as the "baseline" of words and grammar (with any many=20
questions about ambiguities resolved as possible).

> 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.

Perhaps, but more limited than that.=A0 Dictionary-quality definitions=20
(that are "definitive" %^) is the key.=A0 The BPFK sections were the=20
method of writing those definitive definitions.

> The 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 right?

That was the job of the BPFK, and the "how" was basically "whatever was=20
needed to achieve consensus".

> That is, establishing the baseline is
> already doing what the baseline was to serve as basis for: establishing
> changes in the language.=A0 And so 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=A0 Lojban
> (or several), but not of Lojban.

A single "Standard" Lojban, whether anyone actually bothered to follow=20
that standard. (It was envisioned that the BPFK would evolve into a=20
group that would certify the degree of compliance with the standard of=20
submitted works)

> Until someone declares that one of the
> things come up with is the real thing, which will ot be a unanimous
> decision, of course,

It must be a consensus of whoever constitutes the BPFK at the time.=20
(Consensus being defined so as to not allow individual vetoes).

> 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.

I think it did and does exist, because people are capable of deciding=20
whether something is consistent with CLL for the most part.=A0 We know=20
what things people are proposing as "changes" to CLL, such as xorlo, and=20
which are "corrections" and "clarifications".

> All that being the case, some body, consisting of people who actually do
> the work, needs to do something along the lines laid out over the
> decades -- or along some other effective lines.=A0 Or we can go on as a
> squabbling group, boasting about a language we don't have, with
> properties what we do have doesn't have, recruiting (under somewhat
> false pretences) ever more people who deviate ever further from a
> nonexistent norm.=A0 Well, that is a language, after all, though not quit=
e
> what anyone seems to have in mind.

The standard in most lay people's minds is that a language isn't really=20
a language until it has a dictionary (and for most that means a physical=20
book, because until we commit to fixed print, it remains a nebulosity).=20
=A0 We never produced one; jbovlaste is a data base, and not a dictionary.=
=20
=A0 And the baseline was originally defined as a dictionary and a grammar=
=20
(CLL can fulfill the latter, even if it is not a
"specification" sufficient to produce dictionary definitions of cmavo).

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.

---204173969-1722727573-1400768801=:95048
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>Nice to know that the project, despite all that ha=
s been said about it, is just writing adequate definitions for cmavo -- exc=
luding, for now, I suppose, all the experimental ones, but keeping all the =
established highly superfluous ones (cultural neutrality does NOT require t=
hat we can do anything any language can do) and not changing the grammar to=
 get rid of the redundant ones. &nbsp;The joker here seems to be the notion=
 of an adequate definition, since all these words have definitions and even=
 some commentary, not to mention reams of discussion if there is anything c=
ontroversial about them. &nbsp;Surely the boring one just need a write-up a=
nd the non-boring ones a summary.</span></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0=
, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue',
 Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; background-color: transpare=
nt; font-style: normal;"><span>Everybody take a word and spend a few minute=
s, then the whole thing will be done and we can get on with changing everyt=
hing. &nbsp;[sarcasm]<br><br></span></div><div class=3D"yahoo_quoted" style=
=3D"display: block;"> <div style=3D"font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica =
Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <d=
iv style=3D"font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial,=
 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <font si=
ze=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 7:37 AM, "Bob LeChevalie=
r, President and Founder - LLG" &lt;lojbab@lojban.org&gt; wrote:<br> </font=
> </div>  <br><br> <div class=3D"y_msg_container">On 5/20/2014 5:49 PM, 'Jo=
hn E Clifford' via lojban wrote:<br>&gt; This discussion reminds me of the =
obscurity or paradoxicality of the<br>&gt; whole baseline project. The obsc=
urity
 is:What is it to do?&nbsp; The paradox<br>&gt; comes from the usual answer=
: to determine the present state of the<br>&gt; language.&nbsp; But, of cou=
rse, the present state of the language is -- by<br>&gt; definition -- just =
that specified in CLL (after typos are corrected,<br>&gt; discovered inaccu=
rate statements clarified, and the definitive version<br>&gt; of xorlo adde=
d).&nbsp; So, where is the research?<br><br>I'm not sure "research" is need=
ed, per se.&nbsp; If it is, then it consists of:<br>Finding the typos, disc=
overing the inaccurate statements, and figuring <br>out how to clarify them=
 in ways that don't muddy some other point, and <br>coming up with a defini=
tive statement of xorlo (which despite being <br>supposedly well-defined, k=
eeps coming up as a topic of highly technical <br>questions).<br><br>Others=
 might call this "simple editorial work".<br><br>&gt; The escape from the<b=
r>&gt; paradox is to say that what is sought is a report on what is
 currently<br>&gt; accepted as Lojban (by whom is left somewhat open -- per=
haps the<br>&gt; committee or Robin?).&nbsp; But this goes against the whol=
e point, since it<br>&gt; involves a constantly shifting target and standar=
d: what goes<br>&gt; uncriticized nowadays was once rejected or at least su=
spected, so both<br>&gt; the language as used and the tastes of the referee=
s are in flux (and not<br>&gt; guaranteed in agreement if there is more tha=
n one).<br><br>Not guaranteed, which is why we did not require unanimity in=
 voting.<br><br>&gt; While no changes<br>&gt; can be suggested, let alone a=
pproved, until the baseline is done,<br>&gt; countless changes might be (an=
d surely have been) made since the process<br>&gt; began, almost all withou=
t discussion or approval by any body.<br><br>And all of them are unofficial=
, though a few might sneak in if they are <br>close to consistent with the =
wording so far, or if they apply to byfy <br>sections as yet
 unanalyzed.<br><br>&gt; So, in<br>&gt; what sense is what is to be describ=
ed the Lojban(s since some changes<br>&gt; have gone equally in several dir=
ections)?<br><br>If several directions, then one must be chosen.&nbsp; Othe=
rwise, we have <br>schism, which most find unacceptable.<br><br>&gt; In ret=
rospect, it might have<br>&gt; been better to allow changes through a caref=
ul process from the get-go,<br>&gt; building up a cumulative description as=
 we went along.<br><br>That is what was happening up until 1997 or so.&nbsp=
; But we couldn't produce <br>a dictionary or even a good selma'o catalog, =
because we couldn't come up <br>with dictionary-quality definitions of the =
cmavo.&nbsp; While I worked on the <br>gismu/lujvo portion of the dictionar=
y, Cowan started to work on the <br>selma'o catalog which in turn would hop=
efully lead to the cmavo <br>definitions.&nbsp; He started with my tense an=
d negation papers, which each <br>covered a small number of selma'o,
 and went on from there&nbsp; From <br>1994-1997 he wrote corresponding ess=
ays on all the chunks of the <br>language, incidentally generating 20-odd f=
ormal change proposals to the <br>grammar to respond to ambiguities and lim=
itations (a couple of these <br>were changes actually proposed by others, b=
ut codified by Cowan).&nbsp; Those <br>change proposals, as they were accep=
ted/approved by the community of <br>Lojban-List readers, were incorporated=
 into the formal YACC grammar as <br>well as into his textual essays.&nbsp;=
 Then the essays were collected into <br>CLL, with a cross-indexing "selma'=
o catalog" added as the last chapter.<br><br>But this still did not lead to=
 definitions of each cmavo suitable for a <br>dictionary.&nbsp; And a coupl=
e of years after CLL was published, once the <br>community of users who had=
 studied it grew to critical mass, people <br>started finding typos and und=
efined holes in what was described.&nbsp; But no <br>one followed
 Cowan's demonstrated procedures for formally proposing <br>changes, and no=
 one wrote cmavo definitions.&nbsp; When I realized we had <br>passed 5 yea=
rs of so-called baseline without even finalizing the cmavo <br>definitions,=
 I got the Board (with membership approval) to pass the buck <br>to the BPF=
K.&nbsp; It's been more than 10 years now, I think.<br><br>Under Nick, the =
BPFK got the job partly done, but there was too much <br>pressure to finali=
ze certain things before all the other sections were <br>done, and no one v=
olunteered to shepherd the boring parts of the <br>language, which never di=
d get done.&nbsp; Robin moved things much further <br>along, but still coul=
dn't get people to tackle the most boring stuff. <br>We seem to be lacking =
the compulsive completists that Cowan, Nora, <br>Athelstan, Nick and myself=
 were (and I should probably include you among <br>those, since in many way=
s this whole project - of completely codifying <br>the language -
 got started with your attempt to codify all of the Loglan <br>cmavo and se=
lma'o on a set of pages that still graces my historical files).<br><br>&gt;=
 There would then<br>&gt; at least have been some control (beyond the annoy=
ing scolding that we<br>&gt; can't suggest that yet,<br><br>People can sugg=
est anything they want, but they cannot be formally <br>decided without a f=
ormal change proposal which of necessity has to <br>include a statement of =
what the status quo is, which in turn requires <br>the status quo specifica=
tion to be complete.<br><br>(People have made reference to software develop=
ment in this discussion, <br>and the concept I am describing is taken from =
procedures that were <br>standard in most parts of the industry when I was =
working in it, and so <br>far as I know are still standard, albeit more aut=
omated.)<br><br>&gt; when the end of yet was clearly nowhere in sight<br><b=
r>The end has been in sight for a long time.&nbsp; The will to cover
 the <br>intervening distance hasn't been there since Cowan and I stopped l=
eading <br>the effort.&nbsp; It seems to take a completist attitude.<br><br=
>I had the rather extreme ideal of Sir James Murray of OED fame, and a <br>=
couple of books on lexicography to give me guidance, but I simply <br>could=
n't do that kind of job while doing all the rest of the Lojban, <br>jobs I =
was trying to do, especially while also parenting two young kids <br>(somet=
hing Robin has similar discovered %^).&nbsp; Cowan did a splendid job <br>o=
n CLL but has seemed to suffer burnout since then.&nbsp; Lots of others hav=
e <br>taken up the slack, but no one seems to have the drive to get it all =
done.<br><br>&gt; Lojbab has presented a different scenario, in effect.&nbs=
p; CLL was not a<br>&gt; specification, he says, and what the baseline is i=
s a specification (it<br>&gt; is not perfectly clear what that all means in=
 the light of several --<br>&gt; unfortunately non-equivalent --
 grammars).<br><br>The baseline requires a specification defining ALL of th=
e cmavo, because <br>that is what was still missing in 1997.&nbsp; The YACC=
 grammar as published <br>in the appendix to CLL remains the standard for r=
esolving any <br>non-equivalencies.<br><br>&gt;That is, apparently, that th=
e<br>&gt; baseline is to fill out -- with examples and other commentary -- =
all the<br>&gt; details that CLL merely sketched in broad strokes (not a de=
scription<br>&gt; that applies to CLL very handily).<br><br>And in particul=
ar, to come up with dictionary-quality cmavo definitions, <br>so that we ca=
n combine cmavo and gismu and lujvo definitions along with <br>a formal gra=
mmar into a well-defined set of what people understood <br>originally as th=
e "baseline" of words and grammar (with any many <br>questions about ambigu=
ities resolved as possible).<br><br>&gt; that is, the baseline project is t=
o<br>&gt; find out what CLL meant -- or, rather, has come to mean --
 to people who<br>&gt; claim to using Lojban.<br><br>Perhaps, but more limi=
ted than that.&nbsp; Dictionary-quality definitions <br>(that are "definiti=
ve" %^) is the key.&nbsp; The BPFK sections were the <br>method of writing =
those definitive definitions.<br><br>&gt; The problem is one of control aga=
in: if CLL was<br>&gt; not specific, then there are a range of possible mea=
nings and how are we<br>&gt; to decide which one is right?<br><br>That was =
the job of the BPFK, and the "how" was basically "whatever was <br>needed t=
o achieve consensus".<br><br>&gt; That is, establishing the baseline is<br>=
&gt; already doing what the baseline was to serve as basis for: establishin=
g<br>&gt; changes in the language.&nbsp; And so the circle goes on. The mos=
t we can<br>&gt; actually do is report on what users actually do (somehow s=
kipping<br>&gt; mistakes of various sorts) and come up with a description o=
f a&nbsp; Lojban<br>&gt; (or several), but not of Lojban.<br><br>A
 single "Standard" Lojban, whether anyone actually bothered to follow <br>t=
hat standard. (It was envisioned that the BPFK would evolve into a <br>grou=
p that would certify the degree of compliance with the standard of <br>subm=
itted works)<br><br>&gt; Until someone declares that one of the<br>&gt; thi=
ngs come up with is the real thing, which will ot be a unanimous<br>&gt; de=
cision, of course,<br><br>It must be a consensus of whoever constitutes the=
 BPFK at the time. <br>(Consensus being defined so as to not allow individu=
al vetoes).<br><br>&gt; since it will not be either CLL Lojban (which it<br=
>&gt; turns out did not exist as such) or a new version arrived at in an<br=
>&gt; approved way.<br><br>I think it did and does exist, because people ar=
e capable of deciding <br>whether something is consistent with CLL for the =
most part.&nbsp; We know <br>what things people are proposing as "changes" =
to CLL, such as xorlo, and <br>which are "corrections" and
 "clarifications".<br><br>&gt; All that being the case, some body, consisti=
ng of people who actually do<br>&gt; the work, needs to do something along =
the lines laid out over the<br>&gt; decades -- or along some other effectiv=
e lines.&nbsp; Or we can go on as a<br>&gt; squabbling group, boasting abou=
t a language we don't have, with<br>&gt; properties what we do have doesn't=
 have, recruiting (under somewhat<br>&gt; false pretences) ever more people=
 who deviate ever further from a<br>&gt; nonexistent norm.&nbsp; Well, that=
 is a language, after all, though not quite<br>&gt; what anyone seems to ha=
ve in mind.<br><br>The standard in most lay people's minds is that a langua=
ge isn't really <br>a language until it has a dictionary (and for most that=
 means a physical <br>book, because until we commit to fixed print, it rema=
ins a nebulosity). <br>&nbsp; We never produced one; jbovlaste is a data ba=
se, and not a dictionary. <br>&nbsp; And the baseline was originally
 defined as a dictionary and a grammar <br>(CLL can fulfill the latter, eve=
n if it is not a<br>"specification" sufficient to produce dictionary defini=
tions of cmavo).<br><br>lojbab<br><br>-- <br>You received this message beca=
use you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.<br>To unsubscri=
be from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojb=
an+<a ymailto=3D"mailto:unsubscribe@googlegroups.com." href=3D"mailto:unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com.">unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.</a><br>To post to t=
his group, send email to <a ymailto=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com." hre=
f=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> </div></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 />

---204173969-1722727573-1400768801=:95048--