Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 216.109.115.73 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.109.115.73;
References: <53800942.9030407@lojban.org>	<CAO7bV+j4=md2oKaN_i6u68YS7hEzjt_iUkqGkiADRCz21NF_Ww@mail.gmail.com>	<1400948010.93944.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>	<CAO7tK2cuBS+5bqDuf_fFYid5fRHepXK_S6_9cebqSZ0gZcBgMw@mail.gmail.com>	<53D0F569-A434-4953-9A1A-3F8D2001A8BB@yahoo.com>	<CAO7tK2cjetXAJ+D8zjNqRpseindts2=hRkNJrh5giO6rYAvY0Q@mail.gmail.com>	<5380F63E.3070006@gmx.de>	<5381C5B0.1000304@lojban.org>	<538215D3.5050703@lojban.org>	<53823E9B.4000704@lojban.org>	<CAMDmBpEWWh+Z+2zy=H8MgWESVYAHArcVXUFGk8aUNY8gyOAwkw@mail.gmail.com>	<1401063282.53670.YahooMailNeo@web181101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>	<1431E208F0724227979B01C8CCA0A57A@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2fLwE=waioQrkE+xVP776gO1g+S1HizigZ7F1W6hUujAw@mail.gmail.com> <53831256.5090207@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <1401123122.11606.YahooMailNeo@web181105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 09:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: "'John E Clifford' via lojban" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Balningau: The Great Update
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <53831256.5090207@gmx.de>
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="564456775-239812798-1401123122=:11606"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--564456775-239812798-1401123122=:11606
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

No one who has followed this list for the last week, let alone the last few=
 decades, would confuse me with tool of Lojbab, who ignorant, muddled nefea=
sance can not helped Lojban, whether or it not it has hurt it. =C2=A0Nor wi=
th a supporter of the bipfuckers, who have pissed away more than a decade o=
f creative Lojban, not only not adopting or adapting it, as they might have=
 under even Lojbab's and Robins's reading of their charge, but not even kee=
ping records of it to be brought up when the baseline comes. =C2=A0I don't =
bear them any animus, one is the victim or personality and a raft of the vi=
cissitudes of life (which he has chosen to have), the other is a posse of v=
olunteer dilettantes, compared to which nailed Jello and herded cats are mo=
dels of stability and efficiency. =C2=A0I don't bear any animus to selpa'i =
et all , either -- or didn't before I read their comments on my attempt to =
sum up and resolve the current controversy. =C2=A0Now I have a common react=
ion to
 being misrepresented and strawmanned.
ad Lacewell
I didn't assume (or imply) that changes from this group would be hasty or i=
llogical; I just said that official changes would be slow and controlled, w=
hich is just the way the process works, even if the suggested changes are g=
ood and logic (in whatever is the relevant sense here). =C2=A0And, of cours=
e, I was just reporting, not trying to convince anyone of anything at that =
point.
There is no assumption that any change =C2=A0-- from any source -- is illog=
ical (in any sense); this is again just a factual report on the situation: =
that any change must be tested against the logical standards. =C2=A0As note=
d later, changes in the gismu (adding, dropping, changing places, and so on=
) nore or less get a pass on this, since they can't affect the logic. =C2=
=A0Changes in cmavo require a closer look, sometimes a very long one indeed=
,
Maintaining monoparsing is not an easy task (look at how hard it was to ach=
ieve -- even in the rather restricted way we have). =C2=A0So, yes, left unr=
estrained it is likely that the community would lose that feature of Lojban=
, but even if it would not, it is important to check at each new potential =
problem point.
The next series of comments are actually apparently agreeing with me while =
being mildly snarky. =C2=A0As noted, I agree that Lojban needs a more rapid=
 updating process (starting by catching up to now from 20 years ago) and th=
at the President is at least not part of the solution, nor are the bipfucke=
rs. =C2=A0The claims that the proposing group has come up with solutions th=
at should be official and that they are correctly meeting various sorts of =
problems is, of course, merely hearsay, since the solutions have not been w=
ritten up and presented and tested agains standards or compared with other =
possible solutions =C2=A0(even the "problems" which are supposedly solved h=
ave not been verified as real problems except to someone's subjective satis=
faction, so far as t public record shows).
The claim that there are people dying to create educational materials is we=
akened by the dearth of such materials. =C2=A0There is a whole lot of Lojba=
n that needs teaching and that does not involve any controversial matter, b=
ut only a couple of texts have been produced even for that. =C2=A0Show us t=
he work. =C2=A0Hell, show us specimens that use non-standard stuff; that's =
a good way to make a case for making it standard (not to mention that ity i=
os easier to tidy up a textbook than to create one in the first place). =C2=
=A0
I didn't say that one only gets a predicate by predicate pumping; I said th=
at that is a not vry effective way to learn a predicate and that learning i=
t in situ and as much as needed is better. =C2=A0I think the disagreement h=
ere comes down to a difference in theoretical emphasis, which doesn't affec=
t the main point.
The central issue for Lojban is always syntactical unambiguity; changes in =
gismu, etc., never affect that. Logjam, the thread from Loglan 1955 to Lojb=
an now, has had half a dozen different gismu lists. =C2=A0People have enthu=
siastically learned each of them and some have even relearned lists a few t=
imes. =C2=A0None of this has been a serious problem for Logjam and a new li=
st wouldn't be either -- unless, of course, we get dueling lists, aas typic=
ally happens at a certain point (the history of conlangs over the last cent=
ury and a half).
That cmavo might, among vocabulary items, matter was set up at the beginnin=
g, so it should not have been a surprise. =C2=A0The first part was, after a=
ll, just a plea not to get all pushed out of shape by someone proposing to =
muck about with gismu, which is what has been going on for the last few day=
s. =C2=A0The contrast is now to what might matter, if someone were to do it=
 (which, as we have been reminded constantly for a decade, not one is about=
 to). =C2=A0
If you don't like "control", then perhaps what is needed is a guarantee tha=
t, before a change is implemented, it is thoroughly tested against the exis=
ting standard and is adapted to fit in without loss of unambiguity. =C2=A0T=
his is not an easy test to make, apparently, so we need more than just the =
committee of the whole or some smaller consensus to decide; we need experti=
se. =C2=A0And that is starting to get to something very like control -- and=
 gets there all the way if a failed proposal is not allowed into the langua=
ge (as it must be).
I am glad that someone (many someone;s apparently) know all about Lojban, p=
ast and present. =C2=A0I do wish they would tell the rest of us, something =
the bipfuckers could and should have done but never did. =C2=A0But, until t=
his new CLL appears, the claims that all is known are merely subjective cer=
tainty, not subject to verification. =C2=A0In particular, of course, is thi=
s language actually unambiguous? =C2=A0Subjective certainty has long proven=
 rather misleading on that point, for one. =C2=A0In short, yes, the fact th=
at no one has written a new CLL does mean that users don't know its feature=
 set -- or, at least, they have no reason to be sure they do. Unlike Englis=
h, where the claim makes sense (and is even true in a certain sense), Lojba=
n has objective criteria to meet and meeting them requires the language to =
be laid out in totality.
No one said Lojban has only one need. =C2=A0It is a question of priorities =
and using what work time there is wisely. =C2=A0If the bipfuckers are block=
ing you from doing what you to do, the most practical solution -- given tha=
t they are in control of the process and will have to be satisfied sometime=
 (for their project is at least one need) -- is to deal with their problem =
right away and then get on with what you want to do. =C2=A0Otherwise, kvetc=
hing about how they are blocking progress is merely hypocritical, since the=
 path forward is there to follow.=C2=A0
Nothing disrepectful about my remarks. =C2=A0The proposers have consistentl=
y not dealt with cmavo even though they have had every opportunity and know=
 that that is a direct path to what they want to do, so the inference that =
they will continue this way does not seem unjustified. =C2=A0And, of course=
, since they have done nothing with cmavo, they have no demonstrated compet=
ence to do so. =C2=A0Not ignorance, just the public record.
Your final conclusion is not backed up by the evidence: there was nothing h=
ateful, foregone (well, I figured out myy conclusion before I wrote the art=
icle and shaped the article to it, but that is not what you meant), nor dem=
onizing, nor inconsistent. =C2=A0 Your response makes continuing discussion=
 rather difficult, since you presumably won't read anything else either.
My credentials are not a basis for my conclusion, just bona fides as a phil=
osopher of language as called for.
ad Burka
Of course a language has words. =C2=A0The point is (as often repeated) that=
 for Lojban, what the brivla are or what places they have and the like is n=
ot crucial, so long as they have some and are collectively enough. =C2=A0An=
d that goal has been achiever many times already and may well be several mo=
re times. =C2=A0So, Lojban as a recognizable entity can exist with a wide r=
ange of vocabularies -- and has. =C2=A0Fiddling with brivla isa problem not=
 for the language but for a community in which there are two competing vers=
ions. =C2=A0Changing a community from one version to another is difficult, =
but has been done several times; allowing two versions to compete and inter=
act may be one way to effect that change but has historically more often le=
d to schism and collapse.
A good well-defined vocabulary is essential for generating usage, maybe, bu=
t it has to be noted that we have all learned the current vocabulary to the=
 point we have and many of us have learned several older versions (and thus=
, presumably, not so good) versions as well. =C2=A0We generate a fair amoun=
t of usage and are probably neither smarter nor more motivated than the nex=
t generation of Lojbanists, so it is not obvious that any changes in that v=
ocabulary are needed to win more learners or get them to produce more. =C2=
=A0Indeed, the past history of changes suggest that its only effect in term=
s of usage is to tick off a few old-timers.
We agree more or less that people will do what they want and that there is =
nothing we can do about that. =C2=A0That hardly prevents people with goals =
in view as seeing people doing things that are not furthering those goals a=
s wasting time (particularly since what they are doing is rather like what =
the goals require and what they are doing doesn't have any merit within the=
 goal scheme). =C2=A0Of course, if you don't accept those goals, you don't =
see the force of that, and that is your right as well. =C2=A0But, if the go=
als are a central part of some project which you want to particate in, you =
ought either go along or work to change those goals =C2=A0(just bitching ab=
out them doesn't really count). =C2=A0That a proposal to do something which=
 is viewed as a waste of time comes to be viewed as an attack (if it was) w=
hen it is presented as 1) important and 2) as being suppressed by people wh=
o adhere to the goals. Since neither of these claims are obviously true, th=
e
 presentation appears to be hostile rather than collegial (although, given =
actual colleagues and colleges, ...). =C2=A0As to why I think that the peop=
le who want to play with brivla are not interested in or competent to work =
with cmavo, I look at the public record: despite all manner of urging to do=
 so, they have not. =C2=A0They may be competent -- at least some of them --=
 but we do not know (which is what "not obviously" means). =C2=A0Of course,=
 the implicit assumption is that anyone can probably do at least some usefu=
l work with cmavo if they take the task in hand and, up to a point, this is=
 pretty certainly so -- at least as much as it is true for making meaningfu=
l changes to gismu.
As I have found, an offensive tone is pretty subjective. =C2=A0I don't have=
 a dog in this fight but I found the original proclamation and most the fol=
low up rather hostile (at least implying that only the proponents were righ=
t and they were being suppressed and so had to fight, the old war on Christ=
mas gambit). =C2=A0The responses also seemed to be a bit over the top, but =
in the ball park for this sort of exchange. =C2=A0It would have better had =
they all not happened and, objectively, there was no real reason for them t=
o. =C2=A0Aside from the possibility of schism, which comes more from the ma=
nner of presentation than from the activity, there is nothing wrong with pr=
edicate meddling. =C2=A0But, on the other hand, if the probability of schis=
m arises, then LLG has an obligation not to foster on its own resources. =
=C2=A0(Notice please -- and I want credit for this -- I have never once men=
tioned paranoia nor megalomania on either side.)


--In
the midst off this often depressingly puerile exchange, I found the
call for a philosopher of language, so I volunteer (MA in
Linguistics, PhD in Philosophy, dissertation on the borderline
between logic and language, etc. etc. including teaching course in
the area for forty three years, somewhere between 54 and 38 years in
the logical language business, including all the available offices at
TLI and editor of The Lojbanist and VP and Board member at LLG).

So,
a curse on both your houses!

Lojban,
as what people say when they say they are doing Lojban, will change
constantly and in uncontrolled ways.  Lojban, as the language that
has official imprimatur (however that may be gained, right now from
BPFK, apparently), will also change but more slowly and in more
controlled ways. That it will change (or die, of course) is a result
of its being a language.  That its official form will change slowly
and in a controlled way is a result of the kind of language it is:
constructed and logical, especially the latter.

=E2=80=9CLogical=E2=80=9D
here has two interrelated parts.  The first of these is that Lojban
is to be syntactically unambiguous, every grammatical utterance has a
unique parse which tells how the sentence is to be interpreted.  The
second is that this is to be achieved by taking the languages syntax
from that of First Order Predicate Logic (actually some higher order
intensional logic, a la Montague, but that does not make a difference
to the basic point here).  Now, someone who knows FOPL would be hard
pressed to find it in Lojban; many things have had to be changed to
make a usable language (every other expression in FOPL is a
parenthesis of some sort, for example, or some equally non-content
expression).  These impose restrictions on how the official language
can change, since the connection with FOPL cannot be broken for fear
of losing unambiguity (or, at least, a relatively easy way to claim
it, although this connection is not really exploited), and, even if
the connection is lost, unambiguity must be maintained.  So, any
change has to be checked to see that it does not affect this prime
quality (basically, Lojban's only special feature =E2=80=93 it and Loglan
are hardly the only languages with socket-and-plugs core syntax).  So
there is always going to be a prescriptive element in Lojban.

That
being said, it must also be said that most changes in vocabulary have
nothing to do with this central ground.  Changing the meaning of one
of the holes in a socket does not affect the heart of the language.=20
Whether or not these changes are officialized or not just doesn't
matter to Lojban.  Of course, such a change may affect the Lojban
community, dividing it into two groups who misunderstand one another
in some particular circumstances.  For the development of the
language, this can have serious consequences, cutting one group off
from the accumulated lore of the past and the other group off from
new material as it comes in, breaking continuity.  It  tends moreover
to tick off more experienced speakers, who have learned the older
form and are now asked to relearn (which is very hard =E2=80=93 I still,
nearly 40 later, am most likely to come up with a Loglan word as my
first attempt). And, alas, all this tends to create internal
tensions, which can tear a constructed-language community apart,
resulting, typically, in, first, two much smaller groups in
competition, then one still rather small group, then nothing in that
line at all. =20

But
this doesn't have to happen, especially if, as here, the changes are
made in remote (so, by assumption, less used) holes: it would be a
long time before the two sides noticed that one side had dropped x5
of {klama}, say.  (The need to know all the holes of all the sockets
goes back to JCB's medieval notions of language learning and to the
devices which were designed to enable =E2=80=9Cpredicate pumping=E2=80=9D. =
 It
once was the case that at least initial claims to competence amounted
to a total of the number of sockets you could recognize and give all
the hole-meanings for =E2=80=93 and, eventually, all the derivational
forms.  While rational language teaching material is still not as
available as would be nice, most of what is available teaches
vocabulary in context, stressing the useful part and introducing both
sockets and their holes as needed.)  Of course, that raises the issue
of why bother to change these holes and the answer seems to be that
the changes are to satisfy some extrinsic goal: symmetry or
=E2=80=9Corderliness=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cease of learning=E2=80=9D (which,=
 in context,
suggest that learning predicates is done by mini-pumping, learning
all the motion words at once, say =E2=80=93 a possible but rarely ideal
approach).  So not central issues at all. Further, we have all the
usual tools of language for dealing with dialects and diachronic
change.  We recognize the differences and translate and, if we don't,
we ask for an explanation when the discussion obviously runs off the
rails.  Thus, vocabulary changes are just not important.

Well,
a few are and these are all among cmavo.  Obviously, if you change
the meaning of {a} you have changed the connection to FOPL, and
similarly with other expressions clearly tied to logic.  But this
tends to expand outward.  If you change definition {ai} to or from
factive (I don't remember where it is right now; it has changed at
least five times in 60 years), you change the whole logical structure
of the utterance of which it is a part, and many expressions have
this feature.  The possibilities for misunderstanding are now at a
more profound level, even if, technically, the same cures are
available.  So, for these kinds of changes, control is again needed.=20
And, correspondingly, we need to know where we are now, as =E2=80=93 for
various reason =E2=80=93 apparently we do not.  The definitions of content
expressions may not be perfect, but they serve (as the fact that they
have served and are serving shows) and so =E2=80=9Cfixing=E2=80=9D them is =
a low
priority.  But, if, as is claimed, the definitions of some
non-content expressions is no complete or not set, this is a
structural matter that needs to be fixed if we are to say the
language is complete (let alone finished).

So,
if you accept that the cmavo are not completed, that is the priority
task and any activity that might be directed to that task but goes to
something else is a waste or even an attack on Lojban.  Since
meddling with gismu is a task very similar to organizing the cmavo,
it will appear to Lojbab et al as such a waste (or, given the tone of
the proclamation of undertaking that task, an attack).  On the other
hand, since the people doing the meddling are pretty clearly not
going to work on cmavo (and are not obviously competent to do so
anyhow), the tone of his response seems inappropriate (except as a
response to their tone).  The best thing is just to ignore them,
pretty much.  The one reason to pay attention them is the potential
they have to sow dissensions, but, for that, the appropriate response
is just not to allow them to use the LLG websites. =20

In
the midst off this often depressingly puerile exchange, I found the
call for a philosopher of language, so I volunteer (MA in
Linguistics, PhD in Philosophy, dissertation on the borderline
between logic and language, etc. etc. including teaching course in
the area for forty three years, somewhere between 54 and 38 years in
the logical language business, including all the available offices at
TLI and editor of The Lojbanist and VP and Board member at LLG).

So,
a curse on both your houses!

Lojban,
as what people say when they say they are doing Lojban, will change
constantly and in uncontrolled ways.  Lojban, as the language that
has official imprimatur (however that may be gained, right now from
BPFK, apparently), will also change but more slowly and in more
controlled ways. That it will change (or die, of course) is a result
of its being a language.  That its official form will change slowly
and in a controlled way is a result of the kind of language it is:
constructed and logical, especially the latter.

=E2=80=9CLogical=E2=80=9D
here has two interrelated parts.  The first of these is that Lojban
is to be syntactically unambiguous, every grammatical utterance has a
unique parse which tells how the sentence is to be interpreted.  The
second is that this is to be achieved by taking the languages syntax
from that of First Order Predicate Logic (actually some higher order
intensional logic, a la Montague, but that does not make a difference
to the basic point here).  Now, someone who knows FOPL would be hard
pressed to find it in Lojban; many things have had to be changed to
make a usable language (every other expression in FOPL is a
parenthesis of some sort, for example, or some equally non-content
expression).  These impose restrictions on how the official language
can change, since the connection with FOPL cannot be broken for fear
of losing unambiguity (or, at least, a relatively easy way to claim
it, although this connection is not really exploited), and, even if
the connection is lost, unambiguity must be maintained.  So, any
change has to be checked to see that it does not affect this prime
quality (basically, Lojban's only special feature =E2=80=93 it and Loglan
are hardly the only languages with socket-and-plugs core syntax).  So
there is always going to be a prescriptive element in Lojban.

That
being said, it must also be said that most changes in vocabulary have
nothing to do with this central ground.  Changing the meaning of one
of the holes in a socket does not affect the heart of the language.=20
Whether or not these changes are officialized or not just doesn't
matter to Lojban.  Of course, such a change may affect the Lojban
community, dividing it into two groups who misunderstand one another
in some particular circumstances.  For the development of the
language, this can have serious consequences, cutting one group off
from the accumulated lore of the past and the other group off from
new material as it comes in, breaking continuity.  It  tends moreover
to tick off more experienced speakers, who have learned the older
form and are now asked to relearn (which is very hard =E2=80=93 I still,
nearly 40 later, am most likely to come up with a Loglan word as my
first attempt). And, alas, all this tends to create internal
tensions, which can tear a constructed-language community apart,
resulting, typically, in, first, two much smaller groups in
competition, then one still rather small group, then nothing in that
line at all. =20

But
this doesn't have to happen, especially if, as here, the changes are
made in remote (so, by assumption, less used) holes: it would be a
long time before the two sides noticed that one side had dropped x5
of {klama}, say.  (The need to know all the holes of all the sockets
goes back to JCB's medieval notions of language learning and to the
devices which were designed to enable =E2=80=9Cpredicate pumping=E2=80=9D. =
 It
once was the case that at least initial claims to competence amounted
to a total of the number of sockets you could recognize and give all
the hole-meanings for =E2=80=93 and, eventually, all the derivational
forms.  While rational language teaching material is still not as
available as would be nice, most of what is available teaches
vocabulary in context, stressing the useful part and introducing both
sockets and their holes as needed.)  Of course, that raises the issue
of why bother to change these holes and the answer seems to be that
the changes are to satisfy some extrinsic goal: symmetry or
=E2=80=9Corderliness=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cease of learning=E2=80=9D (which,=
 in context,
suggest that learning predicates is done by mini-pumping, learning
all the motion words at once, say =E2=80=93 a possible but rarely ideal
approach).  So not central issues at all. Further, we have all the
usual tools of language for dealing with dialects and diachronic
change.  We recognize the differences and translate and, if we don't,
we ask for an explanation when the discussion obviously runs off the
rails.  Thus, vocabulary changes are just not important.

Well,
a few are and these are all among cmavo.  Obviously, if you change
the meaning of {a} you have changed the connection to FOPL, and
similarly with other expressions clearly tied to logic.  But this
tends to expand outward.  If you change definition {ai} to or from
factive (I don't remember where it is right now; it has changed at
least five times in 60 years), you change the whole logical structure
of the utterance of which it is a part, and many expressions have
this feature.  The possibilities for misunderstanding are now at a
more profound level, even if, technically, the same cures are
available.  So, for these kinds of changes, control is again needed.=20
And, correspondingly, we need to know where we are now, as =E2=80=93 for
various reason =E2=80=93 apparently we do not.  The definitions of content
expressions may not be perfect, but they serve (as the fact that they
have served and are serving shows) and so =E2=80=9Cfixing=E2=80=9D them is =
a low
priority.  But, if, as is claimed, the definitions of some
non-content expressions is no complete or not set, this is a
structural matter that needs to be fixed if we are to say the
language is complete (let alone finished).

So,
if you accept that the cmavo are not completed, that is the priority
task and any activity that might be directed to that task but goes to
something else is a waste or even an attack on Lojban.  Since
meddling with gismu is a task very similar to organizing the cmavo,
it will appear to Lojbab et al as such a waste (or, given the tone of
the proclamation of undertaking that task, an attack).  On the other
hand, since the people doing the meddling are pretty clearly not
going to work on cmavo (and are not obviously competent to do so
anyhow), the tone of his response seems inappropriate (except as a
response to their tone).  The best thing is just to ignore them,
pretty much.  The one reason to pay attention them is the potential
they have to sow dissensions, but, for that, the appropriate response
is just not to allow them to use the LLG websites. =20

In
the midst off this often depressingly puerile exchange, I found the
call for a philosopher of language, so I volunteer (MA in
Linguistics, PhD in Philosophy, dissertation on the borderline
between logic and language, etc. etc. including teaching course in
the area for forty three years, somewhere between 54 and 38 years in
the logical language business, including all the available offices at
TLI and editor of The Lojbanist and VP and Board member at LLG).

So,
a curse on both your houses!

Lojban,
as what people say when they say they are doing Lojban, will change
constantly and in uncontrolled ways.  Lojban, as the language that
has official imprimatur (however that may be gained, right now from
BPFK, apparently), will also change but more slowly and in more
controlled ways. That it will change (or die, of course) is a result
of its being a language.  That its official form will change slowly
and in a controlled way is a result of the kind of language it is:
constructed and logical, especially the latter.

=E2=80=9CLogical=E2=80=9D
here has two interrelated parts.  The first of these is that Lojban
is to be syntactically unambiguous, every grammatical utterance has a
unique parse which tells how the sentence is to be interpreted.  The
second is that this is to be achieved by taking the languages syntax
from that of First Order Predicate Logic (actually some higher order
intensional logic, a la Montague, but that does not make a difference
to the basic point here).  Now, someone who knows FOPL would be hard
pressed to find it in Lojban; many things have had to be changed to
make a usable language (every other expression in FOPL is a
parenthesis of some sort, for example, or some equally non-content
expression).  These impose restrictions on how the official language
can change, since the connection with FOPL cannot be broken for fear
of losing unambiguity (or, at least, a relatively easy way to claim
it, although this connection is not really exploited), and, even if
the connection is lost, unambiguity must be maintained.  So, any
change has to be checked to see that it does not affect this prime
quality (basically, Lojban's only special feature =E2=80=93 it and Loglan
are hardly the only languages with socket-and-plugs core syntax).  So
there is always going to be a prescriptive element in Lojban.

That
being said, it must also be said that most changes in vocabulary have
nothing to do with this central ground.  Changing the meaning of one
of the holes in a socket does not affect the heart of the language.=20
Whether or not these changes are officialized or not just doesn't
matter to Lojban.  Of course, such a change may affect the Lojban
community, dividing it into two groups who misunderstand one another
in some particular circumstances.  For the development of the
language, this can have serious consequences, cutting one group off
from the accumulated lore of the past and the other group off from
new material as it comes in, breaking continuity.  It  tends moreover
to tick off more experienced speakers, who have learned the older
form and are now asked to relearn (which is very hard =E2=80=93 I still,
nearly 40 later, am most likely to come up with a Loglan word as my
first attempt). And, alas, all this tends to create internal
tensions, which can tear a constructed-language community apart,
resulting, typically, in, first, two much smaller groups in
competition, then one still rather small group, then nothing in that
line at all. =20

But
this doesn't have to happen, especially if, as here, the changes are
made in remote (so, by assumption, less used) holes: it would be a
long time before the two sides noticed that one side had dropped x5
of {klama}, say.  (The need to know all the holes of all the sockets
goes back to JCB's medieval notions of language learning and to the
devices which were designed to enable =E2=80=9Cpredicate pumping=E2=80=9D. =
 It
once was the case that at least initial claims to competence amounted
to a total of the number of sockets you could recognize and give all
the hole-meanings for =E2=80=93 and, eventually, all the derivational
forms.  While rational language teaching material is still not as
available as would be nice, most of what is available teaches
vocabulary in context, stressing the useful part and introducing both
sockets and their holes as needed.)  Of course, that raises the issue
of why bother to change these holes and the answer seems to be that
the changes are to satisfy some extrinsic goal: symmetry or
=E2=80=9Corderliness=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cease of learning=E2=80=9D (which,=
 in context,
suggest that learning predicates is done by mini-pumping, learning
all the motion words at once, say =E2=80=93 a possible but rarely ideal
approach).  So not central issues at all. Further, we have all the
usual tools of language for dealing with dialects and diachronic
change.  We recognize the differences and translate and, if we don't,
we ask for an explanation when the discussion obviously runs off the
rails.  Thus, vocabulary changes are just not important.

Well,
a few are and these are all among cmavo.  Obviously, if you change
the meaning of {a} you have changed the connection to FOPL, and
similarly with other expressions clearly tied to logic.  But this
tends to expand outward.  If you change definition {ai} to or from
factive (I don't remember where it is right now; it has changed at
least five times in 60 years), you change the whole logical structure
of the utterance of which it is a part, and many expressions have
this feature.  The possibilities for misunderstanding are now at a
more profound level, even if, technically, the same cures are
available.  So, for these kinds of changes, control is again needed.=20
And, correspondingly, we need to know where we are now, as =E2=80=93 for
various reason =E2=80=93 apparently we do not.  The definitions of content
expressions may not be perfect, but they serve (as the fact that they
have served and are serving shows) and so =E2=80=9Cfixing=E2=80=9D them is =
a low
priority.  But, if, as is claimed, the definitions of some
non-content expressions is no complete or not set, this is a
structural matter that needs to be fixed if we are to say the
language is complete (let alone finished).

So,
if you accept that the cmavo are not completed, that is the priority
task and any activity that might be directed to that task but goes to
something else is a waste or even an attack on Lojban.  Since
meddling with gismu is a task very similar to organizing the cmavo,
it will appear to Lojbab et al as such a waste (or, given the tone of
the proclamation of undertaking that task, an attack).  On the other
hand, since the people doing the meddling are pretty clearly not
going to work on cmavo (and are not obviously competent to do so
anyhow), the tone of his response seems inappropriate (except as a
response to their tone).  The best thing is just to ignore them,
pretty much.  The one reason to pay attention them is the potential
they have to sow dissensions, but, for that, the appropriate response
is just not to allow them to use the LLG websites. =20

In
the midst off this often depressingly puerile exchange, I found the
call for a philosopher of language, so I volunteer (MA in
Linguistics, PhD in Philosophy, dissertation on the borderline
between logic and language, etc. etc. including teaching course in
the area for forty three years, somewhere between 54 and 38 years in
the logical language business, including all the available offices at
TLI and editor of The Lojbanist and VP and Board member at LLG).

So,
a curse on both your houses!

Lojban,
as what people say when they say they are doing Lojban, will change
constantly and in uncontrolled ways.  Lojban, as the language that
has official imprimatur (however that may be gained, right now from
BPFK, apparently), will also change but more slowly and in more
controlled ways. That it will change (or die, of course) is a result
of its being a language.  That its official form will change slowly
and in a controlled way is a result of the kind of language it is:
constructed and logical, especially the latter.

=E2=80=9CLogical=E2=80=9D
here has two interrelated parts.  The first of these is that Lojban
is to be syntactically unambiguous, every grammatical utterance has a
unique parse which tells how the sentence is to be interpreted.  The
second is that this is to be achieved by taking the languages syntax
from that of First Order Predicate Logic (actually some higher order
intensional logic, a la Montague, but that does not make a difference
to the basic point here).  Now, someone who knows FOPL would be hard
pressed to find it in Lojban; many things have had to be changed to
make a usable language (every other expression in FOPL is a
parenthesis of some sort, for example, or some equally non-content
expression).  These impose restrictions on how the official language
can change, since the connection with FOPL cannot be broken for fear
of losing unambiguity (or, at least, a relatively easy way to claim
it, although this connection is not really exploited), and, even if
the connection is lost, unambiguity must be maintained.  So, any
change has to be checked to see that it does not affect this prime
quality (basically, Lojban's only special feature =E2=80=93 it and Loglan
are hardly the only languages with socket-and-plugs core syntax).  So
there is always going to be a prescriptive element in Lojban.

That
being said, it must also be said that most changes in vocabulary have
nothing to do with this central ground.  Changing the meaning of one
of the holes in a socket does not affect the heart of the language.=20
Whether or not these changes are officialized or not just doesn't
matter to Lojban.  Of course, such a change may affect the Lojban
community, dividing it into two groups who misunderstand one another
in some particular circumstances.  For the development of the
language, this can have serious consequences, cutting one group off
from the accumulated lore of the past and the other group off from
new material as it comes in, breaking continuity.  It  tends moreover
to tick off more experienced speakers, who have learned the older
form and are now asked to relearn (which is very hard =E2=80=93 I still,
nearly 40 later, am most likely to come up with a Loglan word as my
first attempt). And, alas, all this tends to create internal
tensions, which can tear a constructed-language community apart,
resulting, typically, in, first, two much smaller groups in
competition, then one still rather small group, then nothing in that
line at all. =20

But
this doesn't have to happen, especially if, as here, the changes are
made in remote (so, by assumption, less used) holes: it would be a
long time before the two sides noticed that one side had dropped x5
of {klama}, say.  (The need to know all the holes of all the sockets
goes back to JCB's medieval notions of language learning and to the
devices which were designed to enable =E2=80=9Cpredicate pumping=E2=80=9D. =
 It
once was the case that at least initial claims to competence amounted
to a total of the number of sockets you could recognize and give all
the hole-meanings for =E2=80=93 and, eventually, all the derivational
forms.  While rational language teaching material is still not as
available as would be nice, most of what is available teaches
vocabulary in context, stressing the useful part and introducing both
sockets and their holes as needed.)  Of course, that raises the issue
of why bother to change these holes and the answer seems to be that
the changes are to satisfy some extrinsic goal: symmetry or
=E2=80=9Corderliness=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cease of learning=E2=80=9D (which,=
 in context,
suggest that learning predicates is done by mini-pumping, learning
all the motion words at once, say =E2=80=93 a possible but rarely ideal
approach).  So not central issues at all. Further, we have all the
usual tools of language for dealing with dialects and diachronic
change.  We recognize the differences and translate and, if we don't,
we ask for an explanation when the discussion obviously runs off the
rails.  Thus, vocabulary changes are just not important.

Well,
a few are and these are all among cmavo.  Obviously, if you change
the meaning of {a} you have changed the connection to FOPL, and
similarly with other expressions clearly tied to logic.  But this
tends to expand outward.  If you change definition {ai} to or from
factive (I don't remember where it is right now; it has changed at
least five times in 60 years), you change the whole logical structure
of the utterance of which it is a part, and many expressions have
this feature.  The possibilities for misunderstanding are now at a
more profound level, even if, technically, the same cures are
available.  So, for these kinds of changes, control is again needed.=20
And, correspondingly, we need to know where we are now, as =E2=80=93 for
various reason =E2=80=93 apparently we do not.  The definitions of content
expressions may not be perfect, but they serve (as the fact that they
have served and are serving shows) and so =E2=80=9Cfixing=E2=80=9D them is =
a low
priority.  But, if, as is claimed, the definitions of some
non-content expressions is no complete or not set, this is a
structural matter that needs to be fixed if we are to say the
language is complete (let alone finished).

So,
if you accept that the cmavo are not completed, that is the priority
task and any activity that might be directed to that task but goes to
something else is a waste or even an attack on Lojban.  Since
meddling with gismu is a task very similar to organizing the cmavo,
it will appear to Lojbab et al as such a waste (or, given the tone of
the proclamation of undertaking that task, an attack).  On the other
hand, since the people doing the meddling are pretty clearly not
going to work on cmavo (and are not obviously competent to do so
anyhow), the tone of his response seems inappropriate (except as a
response to their tone).  The best thing is just to ignore them,
pretty much.  The one reason to pay attention them is the potential
they have to sow dissensions, but, for that, the appropriate response
is just not to allow them to use the LLG websites. =20


On Monday, May 26, 2014 5:07 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
=20


la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
> .e'u di'a casnu la'e di'u bau la lojban .i ba'a va'o lo nu go'i kei lo
> nu prenu gunta cu ba zi tolcfa .i pe'i na se vamji lo raktu fa lo nu
> darlu lo du'u ma kau ma kau zmadu lo ka jbocre .i banzu fa lo nu jarco

ni'o .a'o ma'a ba zi co'a gunka tu'a lo gimste .i .i lo kampu se stidi=20
cu pa moi .e'u .i xu su'o da poi kampu srana zo'u: do no'u la .xorxes.=20
cu djica lo nu ma'a da cnegau .i mi na tugni fi lo du'u lo nu da tcini=20
(to sa'e tcini ja vanbi toi) te sumti lo simsa be zo litki cu sarcu .i=20
pe'i zo va'o banzu .i si'a mi jinvi lo du'u ka'e vimcu vei so'e .a ro lo=20
marji te sumti .i zo marji zasti .i lo nu cusku lu ti baktu lo djacu=20
gi'e marji lo slasi li'u noi basti lu ti baktu lo djacu lo slasi li'u=20
noi cizra (to be mi toi) milxe cu cumki gi'e la'a sai banzu .i do'a nai=20
ju'o nandymau fa lo ka mo'icli .i ji'a sa'u ro da zo'u lo du'u lo baktu=20
da marji cu nibli lo du'u baktu fi zi'o .i ja'o lo si'o marji na vajni

ni'o .a'o su'o drata ba zi stidi de .i lo nu darlu lo na'e srana cu=20
xamgu ma'a no da (to mi zo'u pe'i lo ci moi te sumti be zo xamgu cu=20
panra lo re moi pe zo drani ge'u .a lo ci moi pe zo mapti toi) .u'i

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o


--=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.

--564456775-239812798-1401123122=:11606
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
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 class=3D"" style=3D""><span class=3D"" style=3D"">No one=
 who has followed this list for the last week, let alone the last few decad=
es, would confuse me with tool of Lojbab, who ignorant, muddled nefeasance =
can not helped Lojban, whether or it not it has hurt it. &nbsp;Nor with a s=
upporter of the bipfuckers, who have pissed away more than a decade of crea=
tive Lojban, not only not adopting or adapting it, as they might have under=
 even Lojbab's and Robins's reading of their charge, but not even keeping r=
ecords of it to be brought up when the baseline comes. &nbsp;I don't bear t=
hem any animus, one is the victim or personality and a raft of the vicissit=
udes of life (which he has chosen to have), the other is a posse of volunte=
er dilettantes, compared to which nailed Jello and herded cats are models o=
f
 stability and efficiency. &nbsp;I don't bear any animus to selpa'i et all =
, either -- or didn't before I read their comments on my attempt to sum up =
and resolve the current controversy. &nbsp;Now I have a common reaction to =
being misrepresented and strawmanned.</span></div><div class=3D"" style=3D"=
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetic=
a Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; background-color: t=
ransparent; font-style: normal;"><span class=3D"" style=3D"">ad Lacewell</s=
pan></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: =
HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-se=
rif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;" class=3D""><span c=
lass=3D"" style=3D"">I didn't assume (or imply) that changes from this grou=
p would be hasty or illogical; I just said that official changes would be s=
low and controlled, which is just the way the process works, even if the su=
ggested
 changes are good and logic (in whatever is the relevant sense here). &nbsp=
;And, of course, I was just reporting, not trying to convince anyone of any=
thing at that point.</span></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-si=
ze: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, '=
Lucida Grande', sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: norm=
al;" class=3D""><span class=3D"" style=3D"">There is no assumption that any=
 change &nbsp;-- from any source -- is illogical (in any sense); this is ag=
ain just a factual report on the situation: that any change must be tested =
against the logical standards. &nbsp;As noted later, changes in the gismu (=
adding, dropping, changing places, and so on) nore or less get a pass on th=
is, since they can't affect the logic. &nbsp;Changes in cmavo require a clo=
ser look, sometimes a very long one indeed,</span></div><div style=3D"color=
: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neu=
e',
 Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; background-color: transpare=
nt; font-style: normal;" class=3D""><span class=3D"" style=3D"">Maintaining=
 monoparsing is not an easy task (look at how hard it was to achieve -- eve=
n in the rather restricted way we have). &nbsp;So, yes, left unrestrained i=
t is likely that the community would lose that feature of Lojban, but even =
if it would not, it is important to check at each new potential problem poi=
nt.</span></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-fa=
mily: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', s=
ans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;" class=3D""><=
span class=3D"" style=3D"">The next series of comments are actually apparen=
tly agreeing with me while being mildly snarky. &nbsp;As noted, I agree tha=
t Lojban needs a more rapid updating process (starting by catching up to no=
w from 20 years ago) and that the President is at least not part of the sol=
ution,
 nor are the bipfuckers. &nbsp;The claims that the proposing group has come=
 up with solutions that should be official and that they are correctly meet=
ing various sorts of problems is, of course, merely hearsay, since the solu=
tions have not been written up and presented and tested agains standards or=
 compared with other possible solutions &nbsp;(even the "problems" which ar=
e supposedly solved have not been verified as real problems except to someo=
ne's subjective satisfaction, so far as t public record shows).</span></div=
><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica=
Neue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; back=
ground-color: transparent; font-style: normal;" class=3D""><span class=3D""=
 style=3D"">The claim that there are people dying to create educational mat=
erials is weakened by the dearth of such materials. &nbsp;There is a whole =
lot of Lojban that needs teaching and that does not involve any
 controversial matter, but only a couple of texts have been produced even f=
or that. &nbsp;Show us the work. &nbsp;Hell, show us specimens that use non=
-standard stuff; that's a good way to make a case for making it standard (n=
ot to mention that ity ios easier to tidy up a textbook than to create one =
in the first place). &nbsp;</span></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); =
font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, A=
rial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-styl=
e: normal;" class=3D""><span class=3D"" style=3D"">I didn't say that one on=
ly gets a predicate by predicate pumping; I said that that is a not vry eff=
ective way to learn a predicate and that learning it in situ and as much as=
 needed is better. &nbsp;I think the disagreement here comes down to a diff=
erence in theoretical emphasis, which doesn't affect the main point.</span>=
</div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family:
 HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-s=
erif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;" class=3D""><span =
class=3D"" style=3D"">The central issue for Lojban is always syntactical un=
ambiguity; changes in gismu, etc., never affect that. Logjam, the thread fr=
om Loglan 1955 to Lojban now, has had half a dozen different gismu lists. &=
nbsp;People have enthusiastically learned each of them and some have even r=
elearned lists a few times. &nbsp;None of this has been a serious problem f=
or Logjam and a new list wouldn't be either -- unless, of course, we get du=
eling lists, aas typically happens at a certain point (the history of conla=
ngs over the last century and a half).</span></div><div style=3D"color: rgb=
(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', H=
elvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; background-color: transparent=
; font-style: normal;" class=3D""><span class=3D"" style=3D"">That cmavo mi=
ght,
 among vocabulary items, matter was set up at the beginning, so it should n=
ot have been a surprise. &nbsp;The first part was, after all, just a plea n=
ot to get all pushed out of shape by someone proposing to muck about with g=
ismu, which is what has been going on for the last few days. &nbsp;The cont=
rast is now to what might matter, if someone were to do it (which, as we ha=
ve been reminded constantly for a decade, not one is about to). &nbsp;</spa=
n></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: He=
lveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-seri=
f; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;" class=3D""><span cla=
ss=3D"" style=3D"">If you don't like "control", then perhaps what is needed=
 is a guarantee that, before a change is implemented, it is thoroughly test=
ed against the existing standard and is adapted to fit in without loss of u=
nambiguity. &nbsp;This is not an easy test to make, apparently, so we need
 more than just the committee of the whole or some smaller consensus to dec=
ide; we need expertise. &nbsp;And that is starting to get to something very=
 like control -- and gets there all the way if a failed proposal is not all=
owed into the language (as it must be).</span></div><div style=3D"color: rg=
b(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', =
Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; background-color: transparen=
t; font-style: normal;" class=3D""><span class=3D"" style=3D"">I am glad th=
at someone (many someone;s apparently) know all about Lojban, past and pres=
ent. &nbsp;I do wish they would tell the rest of us, something the bipfucke=
rs could and should have done but never did. &nbsp;But, until this new CLL =
appears, the claims that all is known are merely subjective certainty, not =
subject to verification. &nbsp;In particular, of course, is this language a=
ctually unambiguous? &nbsp;Subjective certainty has long proven rather
 misleading on that point, for one. &nbsp;In short, yes, the fact that no o=
ne has written a new CLL does mean that users don't know its feature set --=
 or, at least, they have no reason to be sure they do. Unlike English, wher=
e the claim makes sense (and is even true in a certain sense), Lojban has o=
bjective criteria to meet and meeting them requires the language to be laid=
 out in totality.</span></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size:=
 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Luc=
ida Grande', sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;=
" class=3D""><span class=3D"" style=3D"">No one said Lojban has only one ne=
ed. &nbsp;It is a question of priorities and using what work time there is =
wisely. &nbsp;If the bipfuckers are blocking you from doing what you to do,=
 the most practical solution -- given that they are in control of the proce=
ss and will have to be satisfied sometime (for their project is at least on=
e
 need) -- is to deal with their problem right away and then get on with wha=
t you want to do. &nbsp;Otherwise, kvetching about how they are blocking pr=
ogress is merely hypocritical, since the path forward is there to follow.&n=
bsp;</span></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-f=
amily: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', =
sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;" class=3D"">=
<span class=3D"" style=3D"">Nothing disrepectful about my remarks. &nbsp;Th=
e proposers have consistently not dealt with cmavo even though they have ha=
d every opportunity and know that that is a direct path to what they want t=
o do, so the inference that they will continue this way does not seem unjus=
tified. &nbsp;And, of course, since they have done nothing with cmavo, they=
 have no demonstrated competence to do so. &nbsp;Not ignorance, just the pu=
blic record.</span></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px=
;
 font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Gr=
ande', sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;" clas=
s=3D""><span class=3D"" style=3D"">Your final conclusion is not backed up b=
y the evidence: there was nothing hateful, foregone (well, I figured out my=
y conclusion before I wrote the article and shaped the article to it, but t=
hat is not what you meant), nor demonizing, nor inconsistent. &nbsp; Your r=
esponse makes continuing discussion rather difficult, since you presumably =
won't read anything else either.</span></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0,=
 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helveti=
ca, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font=
-style: normal;" class=3D""><span class=3D"" style=3D"">My credentials are =
not a basis for my conclusion, just bona fides as a philosopher of language=
 as called for.</span></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 1=
6px;
 font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Gr=
ande', sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;" clas=
s=3D""><span class=3D"" style=3D"">ad Burka</span></div><div style=3D"color=
: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neu=
e', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; background-color: transp=
arent; font-style: normal;" class=3D""><span class=3D"" style=3D"">Of cours=
e a language has words. &nbsp;The point is (as often repeated) that for Loj=
ban, what the brivla are or what places they have and the like is not cruci=
al, so long as they have some and are collectively enough. &nbsp;And that g=
oal has been achiever many times already and may well be several more times=
. &nbsp;So, Lojban as a recognizable entity can exist with a wide range of =
vocabularies -- and has. &nbsp;Fiddling with brivla isa problem not for the=
 language but for a community in which there are two competing versions.
 &nbsp;Changing a community from one version to another is difficult, but h=
as been done several times; allowing two versions to compete and interact m=
ay be one way to effect that change but has historically more often led to =
schism and collapse.</span></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-si=
ze: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, '=
Lucida Grande', sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: norm=
al;" class=3D""><span class=3D"" style=3D"">A good well-defined vocabulary =
is essential for generating usage, maybe, but it has to be noted that we ha=
ve all learned the current vocabulary to the point we have and many of us h=
ave learned several older versions (and thus, presumably, not so good) vers=
ions as well. &nbsp;We generate a fair amount of usage and are probably nei=
ther smarter nor more motivated than the next generation of Lojbanists, so =
it is not obvious that any changes in that vocabulary are needed to win mor=
e
 learners or get them to produce more. &nbsp;Indeed, the past history of ch=
anges suggest that its only effect in terms of usage is to tick off a few o=
ld-timers.</span></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; =
font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Gra=
nde', sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;" class=
=3D""><span class=3D"" style=3D"">We agree more or less that people will do=
 what they want and that there is nothing we can do about that. &nbsp;That =
hardly prevents people with goals in view as seeing people doing things tha=
t are not furthering those goals as wasting time (particularly since what t=
hey are doing is rather like what the goals require and what they are doing=
 doesn't have any merit within the goal scheme). &nbsp;Of course, if you do=
n't accept those goals, you don't see the force of that, and that is your r=
ight as well. &nbsp;But, if the goals are a central part of some project
 which you want to particate in, you ought either go along or work to chang=
e those goals &nbsp;(just bitching about them doesn't really count). &nbsp;=
That a proposal to do something which is viewed as a waste of time comes to=
 be viewed as an attack (if it was) when it is presented as 1) important an=
d 2) as being suppressed by people who adhere to the goals. Since neither o=
f these claims are obviously true, the presentation appears to be hostile r=
ather than collegial (although, given actual colleagues and colleges, ...).=
 &nbsp;As to why I think that the people who want to play with brivla are n=
ot interested in or competent to work with cmavo, I look at the public reco=
rd: despite all manner of urging to do so, they have not. &nbsp;They may be=
 competent -- at least some of them -- but we do not know (which is what "n=
ot obviously" means). &nbsp;Of course, the implicit assumption is that anyo=
ne can probably do at least some useful work with cmavo if they take
 the task in hand and, up to a point, this is pretty certainly so -- at lea=
st as much as it is true for making meaningful changes to gismu.</span></di=
v><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetic=
aNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; bac=
kground-color: transparent; font-style: normal;" class=3D""><span class=3D"=
" style=3D"">As I have found, an offensive tone is pretty subjective. &nbsp=
;I don't have a dog in this fight but I found the original proclamation and=
 most the follow up rather hostile (at least implying that only the propone=
nts were right and they were being suppressed and so had to fight, the old =
war on Christmas gambit). &nbsp;The responses also seemed to be a bit over =
the top, but in the ball park for this sort of exchange. &nbsp;It would hav=
e better had they all not happened and, objectively, there was no real reas=
on for them to. &nbsp;Aside from the possibility of schism, which comes mor=
e
 from the manner of presentation than from the activity, there is nothing w=
rong with predicate meddling. &nbsp;But, on the other hand, if the probabil=
ity of schism arises, then LLG has an obligation not to foster on its own r=
esources. &nbsp;(Notice please -- and I want credit for this -- I have neve=
r once mentioned paranoia nor megalomania on either side.)</span></div><div=
 style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue,=
 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; backgroun=
d-color: transparent; font-style: normal;" class=3D""><span class=3D"" styl=
e=3D""><br></span></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;=
 font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Gr=
ande', sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;" clas=
s=3D""><span class=3D"" style=3D""><br></span></div><div style=3D"color: rg=
b(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', =
Helvetica,
 Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-st=
yle: normal;" class=3D""><span class=3D"" style=3D"">--</span><span style=
=3D"font-size: 9pt; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" class=3D"">=
In
the midst off this often depressingly puerile exchange, I found the
call for a philosopher of language, so I volunteer (MA in
Linguistics, PhD in Philosophy, dissertation on the borderline
between logic and language, etc. etc. including teaching course in
the area for forty three years, somewhere between 54 and 38 years in
the logical language business, including all the available offices at
TLI and editor of The Lojbanist and VP and Board member at LLG).</span></di=
v><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">So,
a curse on both your houses!</font></font></font></div><div style=3D"margin=
-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">Lojban,
as what people say when they say they are doing Lojban, will change
constantly and in uncontrolled ways.  Lojban, as the language that
has official imprimatur (however that may be gained, right now from
BPFK, apparently), will also change but more slowly and in more
controlled ways. That it will change (or die, of course) is a result
of its being a language.  That its official form will change slowly
and in a controlled way is a result of the kind of language it is:
constructed and logical, especially the latter.</font></font></font></div><=
div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D"">=E2=80=9C<font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">Logical=E2=
=80=9D
here has two interrelated parts.  The first of these is that Lojban
is to be syntactically unambiguous, every grammatical utterance has a
unique parse which tells how the sentence is to be interpreted.  The
second is that this is to be achieved by taking the languages syntax
from that of First Order Predicate Logic (actually some higher order
intensional logic, a la Montague, but that does not make a difference
to the basic point here).  Now, someone who knows FOPL would be hard
pressed to find it in Lojban; many things have had to be changed to
make a usable language (every other expression in FOPL is a
parenthesis of some sort, for example, or some equally non-content
expression).  These impose restrictions on how the official language
can change, since the connection with FOPL cannot be broken for fear
of losing unambiguity (or, at least, a relatively easy way to claim
it, although this connection is not really exploited), and, even if
the connection is lost, unambiguity must be maintained.  So, any
change has to be checked to see that it does not affect this prime
quality (basically, Lojban's only special feature =E2=80=93 it and Loglan
are hardly the only languages with socket-and-plugs core syntax).  So
there is always going to be a prescriptive element in Lojban.</font></font>=
</font></div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" st=
yle=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">That
being said, it must also be said that most changes in vocabulary have
nothing to do with this central ground.  Changing the meaning of one
of the holes in a socket does not affect the heart of the language.=20
Whether or not these changes are officialized or not just doesn't
matter to Lojban.  Of course, such a change may affect the Lojban
community, dividing it into two groups who misunderstand one another
in some particular circumstances.  For the development of the
language, this can have serious consequences, cutting one group off
from the accumulated lore of the past and the other group off from
new material as it comes in, breaking continuity.  It  tends moreover
to tick off more experienced speakers, who have learned the older
form and are now asked to relearn (which is very hard =E2=80=93 I still,
nearly 40 later, am most likely to come up with a Loglan word as my
first attempt). And, alas, all this tends to create internal
tensions, which can tear a constructed-language community apart,
resulting, typically, in, first, two much smaller groups in
competition, then one still rather small group, then nothing in that
line at all.  </font></font></font>
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"=
">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">But
this doesn't have to happen, especially if, as here, the changes are
made in remote (so, by assumption, less used) holes: it would be a
long time before the two sides noticed that one side had dropped x5
of {klama}, say.  (The need to know all the holes of all the sockets
goes back to JCB's medieval notions of language learning and to the
devices which were designed to enable =E2=80=9Cpredicate pumping=E2=80=9D. =
 It
once was the case that at least initial claims to competence amounted
to a total of the number of sockets you could recognize and give all
the hole-meanings for =E2=80=93 and, eventually, all the derivational
forms.  While rational language teaching material is still not as
available as would be nice, most of what is available teaches
vocabulary in context, stressing the useful part and introducing both
sockets and their holes as needed.)  Of course, that raises the issue
of why bother to change these holes and the answer seems to be that
the changes are to satisfy some extrinsic goal: symmetry or
=E2=80=9Corderliness=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cease of learning=E2=80=9D (which,=
 in context,
suggest that learning predicates is done by mini-pumping, learning
all the motion words at once, say =E2=80=93 a possible but rarely ideal
approach).  So not central issues at all. Further, we have all the
usual tools of language for dealing with dialects and diachronic
change.  We recognize the differences and translate and, if we don't,
we ask for an explanation when the discussion obviously runs off the
rails.  Thus, vocabulary changes are just not important.</font></font></fon=
t></div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=
=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">Well,
a few are and these are all among cmavo.  Obviously, if you change
the meaning of {a} you have changed the connection to FOPL, and
similarly with other expressions clearly tied to logic.  But this
tends to expand outward.  If you change definition {ai} to or from
factive (I don't remember where it is right now; it has changed at
least five times in 60 years), you change the whole logical structure
of the utterance of which it is a part, and many expressions have
this feature.  The possibilities for misunderstanding are now at a
more profound level, even if, technically, the same cures are
available.  So, for these kinds of changes, control is again needed.=20
And, correspondingly, we need to know where we are now, as =E2=80=93 for
various reason =E2=80=93 apparently we do not.  The definitions of content
expressions may not be perfect, but they serve (as the fact that they
have served and are serving shows) and so =E2=80=9Cfixing=E2=80=9D them is =
a low
priority.  But, if, as is claimed, the definitions of some
non-content expressions is no complete or not set, this is a
structural matter that needs to be fixed if we are to say the
language is complete (let alone finished).</font></font></font></div><div s=
tyle=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">So,
if you accept that the cmavo are not completed, that is the priority
task and any activity that might be directed to that task but goes to
something else is a waste or even an attack on Lojban.  Since
meddling with gismu is a task very similar to organizing the cmavo,
it will appear to Lojbab et al as such a waste (or, given the tone of
the proclamation of undertaking that task, an attack).  On the other
hand, since the people doing the meddling are pretty clearly not
going to work on cmavo (and are not obviously competent to do so
anyhow), the tone of his response seems inappropriate (except as a
response to their tone).  The best thing is just to ignore them,
pretty much.  The one reason to pay attention them is the potential
they have to sow dissensions, but, for that, the appropriate response
is just not to allow them to use the LLG websites. </font></font></font>
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"=
">
</div><div style=3D"background-color: transparent;" class=3D"">


</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">In
the midst off this often depressingly puerile exchange, I found the
call for a philosopher of language, so I volunteer (MA in
Linguistics, PhD in Philosophy, dissertation on the borderline
between logic and language, etc. etc. including teaching course in
the area for forty three years, somewhere between 54 and 38 years in
the logical language business, including all the available offices at
TLI and editor of The Lojbanist and VP and Board member at LLG).</font></fo=
nt></font></div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D""=
 style=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">So,
a curse on both your houses!</font></font></font></div><div style=3D"margin=
-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">Lojban,
as what people say when they say they are doing Lojban, will change
constantly and in uncontrolled ways.  Lojban, as the language that
has official imprimatur (however that may be gained, right now from
BPFK, apparently), will also change but more slowly and in more
controlled ways. That it will change (or die, of course) is a result
of its being a language.  That its official form will change slowly
and in a controlled way is a result of the kind of language it is:
constructed and logical, especially the latter.</font></font></font></div><=
div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D"">=E2=80=9C<font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">Logical=E2=
=80=9D
here has two interrelated parts.  The first of these is that Lojban
is to be syntactically unambiguous, every grammatical utterance has a
unique parse which tells how the sentence is to be interpreted.  The
second is that this is to be achieved by taking the languages syntax
from that of First Order Predicate Logic (actually some higher order
intensional logic, a la Montague, but that does not make a difference
to the basic point here).  Now, someone who knows FOPL would be hard
pressed to find it in Lojban; many things have had to be changed to
make a usable language (every other expression in FOPL is a
parenthesis of some sort, for example, or some equally non-content
expression).  These impose restrictions on how the official language
can change, since the connection with FOPL cannot be broken for fear
of losing unambiguity (or, at least, a relatively easy way to claim
it, although this connection is not really exploited), and, even if
the connection is lost, unambiguity must be maintained.  So, any
change has to be checked to see that it does not affect this prime
quality (basically, Lojban's only special feature =E2=80=93 it and Loglan
are hardly the only languages with socket-and-plugs core syntax).  So
there is always going to be a prescriptive element in Lojban.</font></font>=
</font></div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" st=
yle=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">That
being said, it must also be said that most changes in vocabulary have
nothing to do with this central ground.  Changing the meaning of one
of the holes in a socket does not affect the heart of the language.=20
Whether or not these changes are officialized or not just doesn't
matter to Lojban.  Of course, such a change may affect the Lojban
community, dividing it into two groups who misunderstand one another
in some particular circumstances.  For the development of the
language, this can have serious consequences, cutting one group off
from the accumulated lore of the past and the other group off from
new material as it comes in, breaking continuity.  It  tends moreover
to tick off more experienced speakers, who have learned the older
form and are now asked to relearn (which is very hard =E2=80=93 I still,
nearly 40 later, am most likely to come up with a Loglan word as my
first attempt). And, alas, all this tends to create internal
tensions, which can tear a constructed-language community apart,
resulting, typically, in, first, two much smaller groups in
competition, then one still rather small group, then nothing in that
line at all.  </font></font></font>
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"=
">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">But
this doesn't have to happen, especially if, as here, the changes are
made in remote (so, by assumption, less used) holes: it would be a
long time before the two sides noticed that one side had dropped x5
of {klama}, say.  (The need to know all the holes of all the sockets
goes back to JCB's medieval notions of language learning and to the
devices which were designed to enable =E2=80=9Cpredicate pumping=E2=80=9D. =
 It
once was the case that at least initial claims to competence amounted
to a total of the number of sockets you could recognize and give all
the hole-meanings for =E2=80=93 and, eventually, all the derivational
forms.  While rational language teaching material is still not as
available as would be nice, most of what is available teaches
vocabulary in context, stressing the useful part and introducing both
sockets and their holes as needed.)  Of course, that raises the issue
of why bother to change these holes and the answer seems to be that
the changes are to satisfy some extrinsic goal: symmetry or
=E2=80=9Corderliness=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cease of learning=E2=80=9D (which,=
 in context,
suggest that learning predicates is done by mini-pumping, learning
all the motion words at once, say =E2=80=93 a possible but rarely ideal
approach).  So not central issues at all. Further, we have all the
usual tools of language for dealing with dialects and diachronic
change.  We recognize the differences and translate and, if we don't,
we ask for an explanation when the discussion obviously runs off the
rails.  Thus, vocabulary changes are just not important.</font></font></fon=
t></div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=
=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">Well,
a few are and these are all among cmavo.  Obviously, if you change
the meaning of {a} you have changed the connection to FOPL, and
similarly with other expressions clearly tied to logic.  But this
tends to expand outward.  If you change definition {ai} to or from
factive (I don't remember where it is right now; it has changed at
least five times in 60 years), you change the whole logical structure
of the utterance of which it is a part, and many expressions have
this feature.  The possibilities for misunderstanding are now at a
more profound level, even if, technically, the same cures are
available.  So, for these kinds of changes, control is again needed.=20
And, correspondingly, we need to know where we are now, as =E2=80=93 for
various reason =E2=80=93 apparently we do not.  The definitions of content
expressions may not be perfect, but they serve (as the fact that they
have served and are serving shows) and so =E2=80=9Cfixing=E2=80=9D them is =
a low
priority.  But, if, as is claimed, the definitions of some
non-content expressions is no complete or not set, this is a
structural matter that needs to be fixed if we are to say the
language is complete (let alone finished).</font></font></font></div><div s=
tyle=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">So,
if you accept that the cmavo are not completed, that is the priority
task and any activity that might be directed to that task but goes to
something else is a waste or even an attack on Lojban.  Since
meddling with gismu is a task very similar to organizing the cmavo,
it will appear to Lojbab et al as such a waste (or, given the tone of
the proclamation of undertaking that task, an attack).  On the other
hand, since the people doing the meddling are pretty clearly not
going to work on cmavo (and are not obviously competent to do so
anyhow), the tone of his response seems inappropriate (except as a
response to their tone).  The best thing is just to ignore them,
pretty much.  The one reason to pay attention them is the potential
they have to sow dissensions, but, for that, the appropriate response
is just not to allow them to use the LLG websites. </font></font></font>
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"=
">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D"">


</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">In
the midst off this often depressingly puerile exchange, I found the
call for a philosopher of language, so I volunteer (MA in
Linguistics, PhD in Philosophy, dissertation on the borderline
between logic and language, etc. etc. including teaching course in
the area for forty three years, somewhere between 54 and 38 years in
the logical language business, including all the available offices at
TLI and editor of The Lojbanist and VP and Board member at LLG).</font></fo=
nt></font></div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D""=
 style=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">So,
a curse on both your houses!</font></font></font></div><div style=3D"margin=
-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">Lojban,
as what people say when they say they are doing Lojban, will change
constantly and in uncontrolled ways.  Lojban, as the language that
has official imprimatur (however that may be gained, right now from
BPFK, apparently), will also change but more slowly and in more
controlled ways. That it will change (or die, of course) is a result
of its being a language.  That its official form will change slowly
and in a controlled way is a result of the kind of language it is:
constructed and logical, especially the latter.</font></font></font></div><=
div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D"">=E2=80=9C<font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">Logical=E2=
=80=9D
here has two interrelated parts.  The first of these is that Lojban
is to be syntactically unambiguous, every grammatical utterance has a
unique parse which tells how the sentence is to be interpreted.  The
second is that this is to be achieved by taking the languages syntax
from that of First Order Predicate Logic (actually some higher order
intensional logic, a la Montague, but that does not make a difference
to the basic point here).  Now, someone who knows FOPL would be hard
pressed to find it in Lojban; many things have had to be changed to
make a usable language (every other expression in FOPL is a
parenthesis of some sort, for example, or some equally non-content
expression).  These impose restrictions on how the official language
can change, since the connection with FOPL cannot be broken for fear
of losing unambiguity (or, at least, a relatively easy way to claim
it, although this connection is not really exploited), and, even if
the connection is lost, unambiguity must be maintained.  So, any
change has to be checked to see that it does not affect this prime
quality (basically, Lojban's only special feature =E2=80=93 it and Loglan
are hardly the only languages with socket-and-plugs core syntax).  So
there is always going to be a prescriptive element in Lojban.</font></font>=
</font></div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" st=
yle=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">That
being said, it must also be said that most changes in vocabulary have
nothing to do with this central ground.  Changing the meaning of one
of the holes in a socket does not affect the heart of the language.=20
Whether or not these changes are officialized or not just doesn't
matter to Lojban.  Of course, such a change may affect the Lojban
community, dividing it into two groups who misunderstand one another
in some particular circumstances.  For the development of the
language, this can have serious consequences, cutting one group off
from the accumulated lore of the past and the other group off from
new material as it comes in, breaking continuity.  It  tends moreover
to tick off more experienced speakers, who have learned the older
form and are now asked to relearn (which is very hard =E2=80=93 I still,
nearly 40 later, am most likely to come up with a Loglan word as my
first attempt). And, alas, all this tends to create internal
tensions, which can tear a constructed-language community apart,
resulting, typically, in, first, two much smaller groups in
competition, then one still rather small group, then nothing in that
line at all.  </font></font></font>
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"=
">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">But
this doesn't have to happen, especially if, as here, the changes are
made in remote (so, by assumption, less used) holes: it would be a
long time before the two sides noticed that one side had dropped x5
of {klama}, say.  (The need to know all the holes of all the sockets
goes back to JCB's medieval notions of language learning and to the
devices which were designed to enable =E2=80=9Cpredicate pumping=E2=80=9D. =
 It
once was the case that at least initial claims to competence amounted
to a total of the number of sockets you could recognize and give all
the hole-meanings for =E2=80=93 and, eventually, all the derivational
forms.  While rational language teaching material is still not as
available as would be nice, most of what is available teaches
vocabulary in context, stressing the useful part and introducing both
sockets and their holes as needed.)  Of course, that raises the issue
of why bother to change these holes and the answer seems to be that
the changes are to satisfy some extrinsic goal: symmetry or
=E2=80=9Corderliness=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cease of learning=E2=80=9D (which,=
 in context,
suggest that learning predicates is done by mini-pumping, learning
all the motion words at once, say =E2=80=93 a possible but rarely ideal
approach).  So not central issues at all. Further, we have all the
usual tools of language for dealing with dialects and diachronic
change.  We recognize the differences and translate and, if we don't,
we ask for an explanation when the discussion obviously runs off the
rails.  Thus, vocabulary changes are just not important.</font></font></fon=
t></div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=
=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">Well,
a few are and these are all among cmavo.  Obviously, if you change
the meaning of {a} you have changed the connection to FOPL, and
similarly with other expressions clearly tied to logic.  But this
tends to expand outward.  If you change definition {ai} to or from
factive (I don't remember where it is right now; it has changed at
least five times in 60 years), you change the whole logical structure
of the utterance of which it is a part, and many expressions have
this feature.  The possibilities for misunderstanding are now at a
more profound level, even if, technically, the same cures are
available.  So, for these kinds of changes, control is again needed.=20
And, correspondingly, we need to know where we are now, as =E2=80=93 for
various reason =E2=80=93 apparently we do not.  The definitions of content
expressions may not be perfect, but they serve (as the fact that they
have served and are serving shows) and so =E2=80=9Cfixing=E2=80=9D them is =
a low
priority.  But, if, as is claimed, the definitions of some
non-content expressions is no complete or not set, this is a
structural matter that needs to be fixed if we are to say the
language is complete (let alone finished).</font></font></font></div><div s=
tyle=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">So,
if you accept that the cmavo are not completed, that is the priority
task and any activity that might be directed to that task but goes to
something else is a waste or even an attack on Lojban.  Since
meddling with gismu is a task very similar to organizing the cmavo,
it will appear to Lojbab et al as such a waste (or, given the tone of
the proclamation of undertaking that task, an attack).  On the other
hand, since the people doing the meddling are pretty clearly not
going to work on cmavo (and are not obviously competent to do so
anyhow), the tone of his response seems inappropriate (except as a
response to their tone).  The best thing is just to ignore them,
pretty much.  The one reason to pay attention them is the potential
they have to sow dissensions, but, for that, the appropriate response
is just not to allow them to use the LLG websites. </font></font></font>
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"=
">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D"">


</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">In
the midst off this often depressingly puerile exchange, I found the
call for a philosopher of language, so I volunteer (MA in
Linguistics, PhD in Philosophy, dissertation on the borderline
between logic and language, etc. etc. including teaching course in
the area for forty three years, somewhere between 54 and 38 years in
the logical language business, including all the available offices at
TLI and editor of The Lojbanist and VP and Board member at LLG).</font></fo=
nt></font></div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D""=
 style=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">So,
a curse on both your houses!</font></font></font></div><div style=3D"margin=
-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">Lojban,
as what people say when they say they are doing Lojban, will change
constantly and in uncontrolled ways.  Lojban, as the language that
has official imprimatur (however that may be gained, right now from
BPFK, apparently), will also change but more slowly and in more
controlled ways. That it will change (or die, of course) is a result
of its being a language.  That its official form will change slowly
and in a controlled way is a result of the kind of language it is:
constructed and logical, especially the latter.</font></font></font></div><=
div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D"">=E2=80=9C<font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">Logical=E2=
=80=9D
here has two interrelated parts.  The first of these is that Lojban
is to be syntactically unambiguous, every grammatical utterance has a
unique parse which tells how the sentence is to be interpreted.  The
second is that this is to be achieved by taking the languages syntax
from that of First Order Predicate Logic (actually some higher order
intensional logic, a la Montague, but that does not make a difference
to the basic point here).  Now, someone who knows FOPL would be hard
pressed to find it in Lojban; many things have had to be changed to
make a usable language (every other expression in FOPL is a
parenthesis of some sort, for example, or some equally non-content
expression).  These impose restrictions on how the official language
can change, since the connection with FOPL cannot be broken for fear
of losing unambiguity (or, at least, a relatively easy way to claim
it, although this connection is not really exploited), and, even if
the connection is lost, unambiguity must be maintained.  So, any
change has to be checked to see that it does not affect this prime
quality (basically, Lojban's only special feature =E2=80=93 it and Loglan
are hardly the only languages with socket-and-plugs core syntax).  So
there is always going to be a prescriptive element in Lojban.</font></font>=
</font></div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" st=
yle=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">That
being said, it must also be said that most changes in vocabulary have
nothing to do with this central ground.  Changing the meaning of one
of the holes in a socket does not affect the heart of the language.=20
Whether or not these changes are officialized or not just doesn't
matter to Lojban.  Of course, such a change may affect the Lojban
community, dividing it into two groups who misunderstand one another
in some particular circumstances.  For the development of the
language, this can have serious consequences, cutting one group off
from the accumulated lore of the past and the other group off from
new material as it comes in, breaking continuity.  It  tends moreover
to tick off more experienced speakers, who have learned the older
form and are now asked to relearn (which is very hard =E2=80=93 I still,
nearly 40 later, am most likely to come up with a Loglan word as my
first attempt). And, alas, all this tends to create internal
tensions, which can tear a constructed-language community apart,
resulting, typically, in, first, two much smaller groups in
competition, then one still rather small group, then nothing in that
line at all.  </font></font></font>
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"=
">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">But
this doesn't have to happen, especially if, as here, the changes are
made in remote (so, by assumption, less used) holes: it would be a
long time before the two sides noticed that one side had dropped x5
of {klama}, say.  (The need to know all the holes of all the sockets
goes back to JCB's medieval notions of language learning and to the
devices which were designed to enable =E2=80=9Cpredicate pumping=E2=80=9D. =
 It
once was the case that at least initial claims to competence amounted
to a total of the number of sockets you could recognize and give all
the hole-meanings for =E2=80=93 and, eventually, all the derivational
forms.  While rational language teaching material is still not as
available as would be nice, most of what is available teaches
vocabulary in context, stressing the useful part and introducing both
sockets and their holes as needed.)  Of course, that raises the issue
of why bother to change these holes and the answer seems to be that
the changes are to satisfy some extrinsic goal: symmetry or
=E2=80=9Corderliness=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cease of learning=E2=80=9D (which,=
 in context,
suggest that learning predicates is done by mini-pumping, learning
all the motion words at once, say =E2=80=93 a possible but rarely ideal
approach).  So not central issues at all. Further, we have all the
usual tools of language for dealing with dialects and diachronic
change.  We recognize the differences and translate and, if we don't,
we ask for an explanation when the discussion obviously runs off the
rails.  Thus, vocabulary changes are just not important.</font></font></fon=
t></div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=
=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">Well,
a few are and these are all among cmavo.  Obviously, if you change
the meaning of {a} you have changed the connection to FOPL, and
similarly with other expressions clearly tied to logic.  But this
tends to expand outward.  If you change definition {ai} to or from
factive (I don't remember where it is right now; it has changed at
least five times in 60 years), you change the whole logical structure
of the utterance of which it is a part, and many expressions have
this feature.  The possibilities for misunderstanding are now at a
more profound level, even if, technically, the same cures are
available.  So, for these kinds of changes, control is again needed.=20
And, correspondingly, we need to know where we are now, as =E2=80=93 for
various reason =E2=80=93 apparently we do not.  The definitions of content
expressions may not be perfect, but they serve (as the fact that they
have served and are serving shows) and so =E2=80=9Cfixing=E2=80=9D them is =
a low
priority.  But, if, as is claimed, the definitions of some
non-content expressions is no complete or not set, this is a
structural matter that needs to be fixed if we are to say the
language is complete (let alone finished).</font></font></font></div><div s=
tyle=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><font color=3D"#000000" =
class=3D"" style=3D""><font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=3D"=
" style=3D""><font style=3D"font-size: 9pt" class=3D"">So,
if you accept that the cmavo are not completed, that is the priority
task and any activity that might be directed to that task but goes to
something else is a waste or even an attack on Lojban.  Since
meddling with gismu is a task very similar to organizing the cmavo,
it will appear to Lojbab et al as such a waste (or, given the tone of
the proclamation of undertaking that task, an attack).  On the other
hand, since the people doing the meddling are pretty clearly not
going to work on cmavo (and are not obviously competent to do so
anyhow), the tone of his response seems inappropriate (except as a
response to their tone).  The best thing is just to ignore them,
pretty much.  The one reason to pay attention them is the potential
they have to sow dissensions, but, for that, the appropriate response
is just not to allow them to use the LLG websites. </font></font></font>
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"=
">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D"">


</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"=
">
</div> <div class=3D"qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class=3D"yahoo_quote=
d" style=3D"display: block;"> <div style=3D"font-family: HelveticaNeue, Hel=
vetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"=
 class=3D""> <div style=3D"font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helv=
etica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;" class=3D""> <div=
 dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"" style=3D""> <font size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial" class=
=3D"" style=3D""> On Monday, May 26, 2014 5:07 AM, selpa'i &lt;seladwa@gmx.=
de&gt; wrote:<br class=3D"" style=3D""> </font> </div>  <br class=3D"" styl=
e=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D""> <div class=3D"" style=3D"">la .xorxes. cu=
 cusku di'e<br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D"">&gt; .e'u di'a casnu la=
'e di'u bau la lojban .i ba'a va'o lo nu go'i kei lo<br clear=3D"none" clas=
s=3D"" style=3D"">&gt; nu prenu gunta cu ba zi tolcfa .i pe'i na se vamji l=
o raktu fa lo nu<br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D"">&gt; darlu lo du'u=
 ma kau ma kau zmadu lo ka jbocre .i banzu fa lo nu
 jarco<br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D""><br clear=3D"none" class=3D"=
" style=3D"">ni'o .a'o ma'a ba zi co'a gunka tu'a lo gimste .i .i lo kampu =
se stidi <br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D"">cu pa moi .e'u .i xu su'o=
 da poi kampu srana zo'u: do no'u la .xorxes. <br clear=3D"none" class=3D""=
 style=3D"">cu djica lo nu ma'a da cnegau .i mi na tugni fi lo du'u lo nu d=
a tcini <br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D"">(to sa'e tcini ja vanbi to=
i) te sumti lo simsa be zo litki cu sarcu .i <br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" =
style=3D"">pe'i zo va'o banzu .i si'a mi jinvi lo du'u ka'e vimcu vei so'e =
.a ro lo <br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D"">marji te sumti .i zo marj=
i zasti .i lo nu cusku lu ti baktu lo djacu <br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" s=
tyle=3D"">gi'e marji lo slasi li'u noi basti lu ti baktu lo djacu lo slasi =
li'u <br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D"">noi cizra (to be mi toi) milx=
e cu cumki gi'e la'a sai banzu .i do'a nai <br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" st=
yle=3D"">ju'o nandymau fa lo ka mo'icli .i ji'a sa'u
 ro da zo'u lo du'u lo baktu <br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D"">da ma=
rji cu nibli lo du'u baktu fi zi'o .i ja'o lo si'o marji na vajni<br clear=
=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D""><br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D"">ni=
'o .a'o su'o drata ba zi stidi de .i lo nu darlu lo na'e srana cu <br clear=
=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D"">xamgu ma'a no da (to mi zo'u pe'i lo ci moi=
 te sumti be zo xamgu cu <br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D"">panra lo =
re moi pe zo drani ge'u .a lo ci moi pe zo mapti toi) .u'i<br clear=3D"none=
" class=3D"" style=3D""><br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D"">mi'e la se=
lpa'i mu'o<div class=3D"" id=3D"yqtfd84053" style=3D""><br clear=3D"none" c=
lass=3D"" style=3D""><br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D"">-- <br clear=
=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D"">You received this message because you are s=
ubscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.<br clear=3D"none" class=3D""=
 style=3D"">To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from i=
t, send an email to lojban+<a shape=3D"rect"
 ymailto=3D"mailto:unsubscribe@googlegroups.com." href=3D"mailto:unsubscrib=
e@googlegroups.com." class=3D"" style=3D"">unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.</a=
><br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D"">To post to this group, send email=
 to <a shape=3D"rect" ymailto=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com." href=3D"m=
ailto:lojban@googlegroups.com." class=3D"" style=3D"">lojban@googlegroups.c=
om.</a><br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D"">Visit this group at http://=
groups.google.com/group/lojban.<br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D"">For=
 more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.<br clear=3D"none" =
class=3D"" style=3D""></div><br class=3D"" style=3D""><br class=3D"" style=
=3D""></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 />

--564456775-239812798-1401123122=:11606--