Received-SPF: none (google.com: me@v4hn.de does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=85.13.134.113;
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 00:26:42 +0200
From: v4hn <me@v4hn.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Balningau: The Great Update
Message-ID: <20140522222642.GT19511@samsa.fritz.box>
References: <b3d39fc1-7bcf-42c7-accf-5bf992ff183d@googlegroups.com>
 <CAP=UV6qxw48A4oNRqpyR1UFEnoQ6yTNdQy03E=p2is7W6wUoUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABM8VqdCE1mo1CYpC+dguw46BwZnY94MCR5ek=4cEBjBuCpchA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qa1NXTiqN6KSzHv0"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABM8VqdCE1mo1CYpC+dguw46BwZnY94MCR5ek=4cEBjBuCpchA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
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:  On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 04:06:09PM -0500, Adam Lopresto wrote:
    > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Craig Daniel <craigbdaniel@gmail.com>wrote:
    > > > Question: > > > > Is it your intention to fork off of Lojban? If so,
    what do you believe > > fracturing the speech community will accomplish?
   If not, why are you > > making no apparent effort to make this any kind of
    official project? [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  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


--qa1NXTiqN6KSzHv0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 04:06:09PM -0500, Adam Lopresto wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Craig Daniel <craigbdaniel@gmail.com>wro=
te:
>=20
> > Question:
> >
> > Is it your intention to fork off of Lojban? If so, what do you believe
> > fracturing the speech community will accomplish? If not, why are you
> > making no apparent effort to make this any kind of official project?

Ever tried to talk to a wall? How about twice+? .u'iru'e .uinai
The official answer of the LLG is pretty much clear even before talking
about it...

Although pretty much besides the point in this case, I agree.
Changing the place structure of irregular gismu has nothing to do with
e.g. the specifications for termset cmavo.

> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Dustin Lacewell <dlacewell@gmail.com>
> > > We have considered how to approach the community
> > > regarding this agenda and the conclusion was to formally approach the
> > > mailing-list, Facebook and IRC communities regarding the status-quo
> > > regarding the policies related to lojban's maintenance.
> > >
> > > You can view the result of this approach in this thread:
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/_juGorRhWtI

This entire thread never refers to either the gimste or irregular gismu
_at all_. I see no sense in referring to it here.

> > > The suggestions provided for removing that gridlock have been,
> > > to be clear, deemed unreasonable and not worth their weight in practi=
cal
> > > value.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > Be certain that we have *heard* these outlines for how we should be s=
pending
> > > our efforts, considered them, and decided we have no intention of car=
rying
> > > out such tautological efforts as prerequisites to our own.
> > >
> > > To speak plainly, we simply are not interested.
> > > We have far more practical things to do that are directly
> > > related to dealing with making the lojbanic prescription more immedia=
tely
> > > reflective of modern lojban for the benefit of its current speakers a=
nd
> > > the sensibilities of those finding the language for the first time, e=
very
> > > day.

I see why you consider irregular gismu "more practical" than completing the=
 byfy.
Yet, I politely disagree when you say that finishing
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Contact+Spatial
and
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Termsets
is not practical at all and tries to define a 10-year old language.
I'm pretty sure you use {bu'u} and {ne'i} in your "practical" language.
Do you agree with the definitions given? Is this the way you use these words
and want them to be used?

What about {ce'e} and {pe'e}? Surely they are less commonly used, but never=
theless
they could appear in regular discussions. Are their definitions reasonable?

If all of these words _are_ the way you want them to be, then the byfy or,
given that selpa'i considers them to be dead, anyone Robin considers knowle=
dgeable
enough, can officially vote for the acceptance of all the sections.

This would leave some rather formal things to be done. See
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+To-Do
Apart from xorxes' many grammar simplifications,
these things look pretty much ready for voting to me..
Some of these already, however, already started year-long discussions...

> > > The first of those efforts is the aforementioned revision of the gims=
te.

The only real problem I have with this whole endeavour, as you described it
so far, is the "The first of those efforts"-part. What comes after?


v4hn

--qa1NXTiqN6KSzHv0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=dtBQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--qa1NXTiqN6KSzHv0--