Received-SPF: none (google.com: lojbab@lojban.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=68.230.241.215;
Message-ID: <5380CBEB.1040504@lojban.org>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 12:42:19 -0400
From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Balningau: The Great Update
References: <b3d39fc1-7bcf-42c7-accf-5bf992ff183d@googlegroups.com> <CAP=UV6qxw48A4oNRqpyR1UFEnoQ6yTNdQy03E=p2is7W6wUoUw@mail.gmail.com> <CABM8VqdCE1mo1CYpC+dguw46BwZnY94MCR5ek=4cEBjBuCpchA@mail.gmail.com> <5AT71o01T56Cr6M01AT9wo> <538004FD.4080709@lojban.org> <5s691o00z56Cr6M01s6AVs>
In-Reply-To: <5s691o00z56Cr6M01s6AVs>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

On 5/24/2014 12:05 PM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban wrote:
> Dang it, Bob, you just undid your bit of good!  You have again saddled
> BPFK with the paradoxical task of now documenting a language that ceased
> to exist in 1997 (if even then).

Actually, I just stated it poorly.  But my new if longwinded version may 
not be more satisfactory - just more accurate

> The sensible approach (and what I think was actually intended --
> certainly after it became clear that the baselining was not going to be
> done in a short time)

By the time that could become clear, things were in such a muddle that 
almost no one was thinking about the final goal, only about winning the 
argument of the day.  I largely dropped out of active byfy work because 
I couldn't keep up with the argument of the day.

>is to close a corpus (we do have a good searchable
> corpus somewhere, don't we) at some date certain (tomorrow, say or June
> 1, 2014 anyhow) and describe that language synchronically and
> diachronically, then take the synchronic as a baseline with notes on how
> it evolved from CLL based on the diachronic data.  This is a nice simple
> field linguist job, made considerably easier by all the tools in CLL and
> since.

As Nick's description referenced in my other post shows, the corpus was 
intended to be a big part of the effort.  But we didn't have any field 
linguists (other than Nick himself), and it seemed that few really 
wanted to do that part of the work (as opposed to arguing about the wat 
things "should be"), so there was nothing simple about it.

> All it needs is warm bodies with computers, since very little
> serious thought is required.

So I thought as well.  But even in my own attempts at corpus diving, 
nothing proved simple.  And no one talked about the problems, only about 
this or that interpretation of the language design.

lojbab

-- 
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/d/optout.