Received-SPF: none (google.com: lojbab@lojban.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=68.230.241.213;
Message-ID: <53822A42.9070303@lojban.org>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 13:37:06 -0400
From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
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> <20140525161129.7cff160d@aol.com> <6ErD1o00S56Cr6M01ErEku>
In-Reply-To: <6ErD1o00S56Cr6M01ErEku>
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=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

On 5/25/2014 10:50 AM, selpa'i wrote:
>> - Even if people knew that, lojbanists basically may be split into two
>> camps, the =E2=80=9Cbefore gismu rewrite=E2=80=9D and the =E2=80=9Cafter=
 gismu rewrite=E2=80=9D camp.
>
> Already the case for cmavo and for several gismu. Consider Lojbab who
> refuses to use xorlo even though it's official.

I don't "refuse" to use it.  I don't understand it, and thus CAN'T use=20
it, except insofar as my usage just happens to be compatible with xorlo,=20
which xorxes says is essentially always.

And "xorlo" itself is an English coinage and not a gismu, so far as I know.

>> - The existing regular lujvo using this gismu may become irregular. A
>> person may wonder =E2=80=9CHuh? Where did that X place come from?=E2=80=
=9D. The lujvo
>> would still work, but remembering will be harder.
>
> Regular lujvo will change automatically in usage

NOTHING changes automatically.

> and where needed the definitions can be updated in the dictionary.

We can't get the existing stuff done.

>> I am not saying these problems are neccessarily unsolvable. But the
>> proposal does not seem to address any of these problems.
>
> Well, instead of shooting it down categorically, you could have asked
> for clarification. Afterall, this is supposed to be a joint effort.

You may think it is supposed to be, but it isn't.  It is a small group=20
of you and your fellow-travelers going off half-cocked. Most people are=20
NOT interested in designing part of all of an artificial language.  They=20
choose to use Lojban because it is DONE (even if not fully documented).=20
  And they value our commitment against ad hoc prescriptive change.

You did not experience what happened when JCB did his redesign of his=20
gismu list.  The rather small TLI Loglan community essentially=20
disappeared for several years.

> There is a non-negligible number of people who support the revision and
> who are going to take part. Maybe they are going to speak up themselves.

We won't stop them, but LLG cannot support them.

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.