Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of durka42@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22f;
Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 15:28:43 -0400
From: Alex Burka <durka42@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-ID: <D466B703457249499CCF92E7B47BD968@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53822A42.9070303@lojban.org>
References: <b3d39fc1-7bcf-42c7-accf-5bf992ff183d@googlegroups.com>
 <20140525161129.7cff160d@aol.com> <6ErD1o00S56Cr6M01ErEku>
 <53822A42.9070303@lojban.org>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Balningau: The Great Update
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5382446b_116ae494_11e"
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:  Indeed, maybe some of those people will speak up for themselves.
    Hi, I'm one of them! I think Lojban is a beautiful language and I have immense
    respect for its designers. I also agree with many others in the community
    that there are parts that could be improved, and I want to help in this effort
    to explore that. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (durka42[at]gmail.com)
  0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
                             CUSTOM_MED
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
  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

--5382446b_116ae494_11e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Indeed, maybe some of those people will speak up for themselves. Hi, I'm on=
e of them! I think Lojban is a beautiful language and I have immense respec=
t for its designers. I also agree with many others in the community that th=
ere are parts that could be improved, and I want to help in this effort to =
explore that.

Reading through this thread I was surprised and disappointed by how fast it=
 descended into personal attacks. Originally, I thought it was an argument =
about whether we should try to make slightly updated gimste. But it doesn't=
 seem to be about that at all. I don't understand talking to an accomplishe=
d member of the community using words like "newbie" and "hubris".

Some of the points that have been raised as objections don't make sense to =
me.

One is that changing the gimste at all makes it harder to learn. Perhaps th=
is is conflating learning (for new speakers) with relearning (for existing =
speakers). Of course, changing the place structure of a gismu presents a sm=
all but surmountable hardship for someone who has already memorized that wo=
rd. The change may be unwelcome, if they liked the old place structure, or =
welcome, if they didn't. But for new speakers, a more internally consistent=
 gimste  can only be easier to learn. And Lojban needs new speakers if it i=
s to survive and thrive. Now, there is a balance to be struck. Past and cur=
rent usage is very important, and no word should (or would) be changed with=
out careful consideration.

The "semantic categorization" part is a detail. We could go alphabetically;=
 it would just be more difficult. It's not really relevant to the main poin=
t of whether we should do this. And of course the gismu can be categorized =
-- no categorization will be perfect, obviously, but some already exist, an=
d they aren't simplistic sorting by the x1 places. It's also a learning aid=
 for nintadni, if done well, to be able to study the gismu in an order info=
rmed by their meaning, rather than alphabetically.

And you've claimed at alternate points that Lojban is "done" and not done! =
The BPFK still has work to do, and so by focusing on the gimste we're looki=
ng at the "wrong" part -- that's fine. But it's not consistent with Lojban =
being a finished product. The BPFK has accepted official changes such as xo=
rlo and the CLL itself points to isolated parts of the language (rafsi fu'i=
vla, na'e with gu'e constructs, etc) that needed work when it was published=
. Even if it were true that everyone who bought the CLL wanted Lojban to re=
main change-free forever (which is false) they can't wish for those problem=
 areas, at least, to never be fleshed out.

You'll have to take our word for it that there is an active community on IR=
C. Actually, you don't have to believe us -- you can look at the logs. Ther=
e are seven bots by my count, and a bunch of active users (and more inactiv=
e, but such is the nature of IRC). Evidence that people are interested in o=
ur efforts has already appeared on the mailing list.

Anyway we don't ask for legitimacy from the LLG at this time. Ridicule is f=
ine, but it is a waste of time. We simply want to see what we can do with t=
he gimste, and invite input from anyone and everyone who wants to participa=
te. It is absolutely not my personal goal to be divisive or cause a schism,=
 and I don't think that will result from our efforts, but I can't control w=
hat others view as schismatic. It's even possible that in the far future th=
e BPFK would consider some of our changes. Some in the community and the LL=
G have expressed interest in that possibility, and I hope they will make th=
emselves heard here, but it's not the point or the current goal. Hopefully =
the current argument has mostly run its course, so that those of us who wan=
t to can focus and the rest can resume ignoring us.

mi'a la durka mu'o =20


On Sunday, May 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Robert LeChevalier wrote:

> On 5/25/2014 10:50 AM, selpa'i wrote:
> > > - Even if people knew that, lojbanists basically may be split into tw=
o
> > > camps, the =E2=80=9Cbefore gismu rewrite=E2=80=9D and the =E2=80=9Caf=
ter gismu rewrite=E2=80=9D camp.
> > > =20
> > =20
> > =20
> > Already the case for cmavo and for several gismu. Consider Lojbab who
> > refuses to use xorlo even though it's official.
> > =20
> =20
> =20
> 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.
> =20
> And "xorlo" itself is an English coinage and not a gismu, so far as I kno=
w.
> =20
> > > - 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.
> > > =20
> > =20
> > =20
> > Regular lujvo will change automatically in usage
> =20
> NOTHING changes automatically.
> =20
> > and where needed the definitions can be updated in the dictionary.
> =20
> We can't get the existing stuff done.
> =20
> > > I am not saying these problems are neccessarily unsolvable. But the
> > > proposal does not seem to address any of these problems.
> > > =20
> > =20
> > =20
> > Well, instead of shooting it down categorically, you could have asked
> > for clarification. Afterall, this is supposed to be a joint effort.
> > =20
> =20
> =20
> 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.
> =20
> 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.
> =20
> > 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=
.
> > =20
> =20
> =20
> We won't stop them, but LLG cannot support them.
> =20
> lojbab
> =20
> =20
> -- =20
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Go=
ogle Groups "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/l=
ojban/h6yQDGV5lQw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojba=
n+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com (mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com)=
.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com (mailto:lojb=
an@googlegroups.com).
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> =20
> =20


--=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.

--5382446b_116ae494_11e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


                <div>Indeed, maybe some of those people will speak up for t=
hemselves. Hi, I'm one of them! I think Lojban is a beautiful language and =
I have immense respect for its designers. I also agree with many others in =
the community that there are parts that could be improved, and I want to he=
lp in this effort to explore that.</div><div><br></div><div>Reading through=
 this thread I was surprised and disappointed by how fast it descended into=
 personal attacks. Originally, I thought it was an argument about whether w=
e should try to make slightly updated gimste. But it doesn't seem to be abo=
ut that at all. I don't understand talking to an accomplished member of the=
 community using words like "newbie" and "hubris".</div><div><br></div><div=
>Some of the points that have been raised as objections don't make sense to=
 me.</div><div><br></div><div>One is that changing the gimste at all makes =
it harder to learn. Perhaps this is conflating learning (for new speakers) =
with relearning (for existing speakers). Of course, changing the place stru=
cture of a gismu presents a small but surmountable hardship for someone who=
 has already memorized that word. The change may be unwelcome, if they like=
d the old place structure, or welcome, if they didn't. But for new speakers=
, a more internally consistent gimste &nbsp;can only be easier to learn. An=
d Lojban needs new speakers if it is to survive and thrive. Now, there is a=
 balance to be struck. Past and current usage is very important, and no wor=
d should (or would) be changed without careful consideration.</div><div><br=
></div><div>The "semantic categorization" part is a detail. We could go alp=
habetically; it would just be more difficult. It's not really relevant to t=
he main point of whether we should do this. And of course the gismu can be =
categorized -- no categorization will be perfect, obviously, but some alrea=
dy exist, and they aren't simplistic sorting by the x1 places. It's also a =
learning aid for nintadni, if done well, to be able to study the gismu in a=
n order informed by their meaning, rather than alphabetically.</div><div><b=
r></div><div>And you've claimed at alternate points that Lojban is "done" a=
nd not done! The BPFK still has work to do, and so by focusing on the gimst=
e we're looking at the "wrong" part -- that's fine. But it's not consistent=
 with Lojban being a finished product. The BPFK has accepted official chang=
es such as xorlo and the CLL itself points to isolated parts of the languag=
e (rafsi fu'ivla, na'e with gu'e constructs, etc) that needed work when it =
was published. Even if it were true that everyone who bought the CLL wanted=
 Lojban to remain change-free forever (which is false) they can't wish for =
those problem areas, at least, to never be fleshed out.</div><div><br></div=
><div>You'll have to take our word for it that there is an active community=
 on IRC. Actually, you don't have to believe us -- you can look at the logs=
. There are seven bots by my count, and a bunch of active users (and more i=
nactive, but such is the nature of IRC). Evidence that people are intereste=
d in our efforts has already appeared on the mailing list.</div><div><br></=
div><div>Anyway we don't ask for legitimacy from the LLG at this time. Ridi=
cule is fine, but it is a waste of time. We simply want to see what we can =
do with the gimste, and invite input from anyone and everyone who wants to =
participate. It is absolutely not my personal goal to be divisive or cause =
a schism, and I don't think that will result from our efforts, but I can't =
control what others view as schismatic. It's even possible that in the far =
future the BPFK would consider some of our changes. Some in the community a=
nd the LLG have expressed interest in that possibility, and I hope they wil=
l make themselves heard here, but it's not the point or the current goal. H=
opefully the current argument has mostly run its course, so that those of u=
s who want to can focus and the rest can resume ignoring us.</div><div><br>=
</div><div>mi'a la durka mu'o</div>
                <div></div>
                =20
                <p style=3D"color: #A0A0A8;">On Sunday, May 25, 2014 at 1:3=
7 PM, Robert LeChevalier wrote:</p>
                <blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"border-left-style:solid;=
border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;">
                    <span><div><div><div>On 5/25/2014 10:50 AM, selpa'i wro=
te:</div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div=
>- Even if people knew that, lojbanists basically may be split into two</di=
v><div>camps, the =E2=80=9Cbefore gismu rewrite=E2=80=9D and the =E2=80=9Ca=
fter gismu rewrite=E2=80=9D camp.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><d=
iv>Already the case for cmavo and for several gismu. Consider Lojbab who</d=
iv><div>refuses to use xorlo even though it's official.</div></div></blockq=
uote><div><br></div><div>I don't "refuse" to use it.  I don't understand it=
, and thus CAN'T use </div><div>it, except insofar as my usage just happens=
 to be compatible with xorlo, </div><div>which xorxes says is essentially a=
lways.</div><div><br></div><div>And "xorlo" itself is an English coinage an=
d not a gismu, so far as I know.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type=3D"ci=
te"><div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div>- The existing regular lujvo u=
sing this gismu may become irregular. A</div><div>person may wonder =E2=80=
=9CHuh? Where did that X place come from?=E2=80=9D. The lujvo</div><div>wou=
ld still work, but remembering will be harder.</div></div></blockquote><div=
><br></div><div>Regular lujvo will change automatically in usage</div></div=
></blockquote><div><br></div><div>NOTHING changes automatically.</div><div>=
<br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>and where needed the definitions c=
an be updated in the dictionary.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We c=
an't get the existing stuff done.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type=3D"c=
ite"><div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div>I am not saying these problem=
s are neccessarily unsolvable. But the</div><div>proposal does not seem to =
address any of these problems.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>=
Well, instead of shooting it down categorically, you could have asked</div>=
<div>for clarification. Afterall, this is supposed to be a joint effort.</d=
iv></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You may think it is supposed to b=
e, but it isn't.  It is a small group </div><div>of you and your fellow-tra=
velers going off half-cocked. Most people are </div><div>NOT interested in =
designing part of all of an artificial language.  They </div><div>choose to=
 use Lojban because it is DONE (even if not fully documented). </div><div> =
 And they value our commitment against ad hoc prescriptive change.</div><di=
v><br></div><div>You did not experience what happened when JCB did his rede=
sign of his </div><div>gismu list.  The rather small TLI Loglan community e=
ssentially </div><div>disappeared for several years.</div><div><br></div><b=
lockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div>There is a non-negligible number of peopl=
e who support the revision and</div><div>who are going to take part. Maybe =
they are going to speak up themselves.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></d=
iv><div>We won't stop them, but LLG cannot support them.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>lojbab</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>-- </div><div>You rec=
eived this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Grou=
ps "lojban" group.</div><div>To unsubscribe from this topic, visit <a href=
=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/h6yQDGV5lQw/unsubscribe">https=
://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/h6yQDGV5lQw/unsubscribe</a>.</div><div>=
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to <a href=
=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegr=
oups.com</a>.</div><div>To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mai=
lto:lojban@googlegroups.com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.</div><div>Visit t=
his group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http://group=
s.google.com/group/lojban</a>.</div><div>For more options, visit <a href=3D=
"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>=
.</div></div></div></span>
                =20
                =20
                =20
                =20
                </blockquote>
                =20
                <div>
                    <br>
                </div>
           =20

<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 />

--5382446b_116ae494_11e--