Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of almikes@aol.com designates 64.12.143.75 as permitted sender) client-ip=64.12.143.75;
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 15:50:10 +0200
From: "'Wuzzy' via lojban" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Balningau: The Great Update
Message-ID: <20140527155010.6a07cc0f@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <53820348.509@gmx.de>
References: <b3d39fc1-7bcf-42c7-accf-5bf992ff183d@googlegroups.com>
	<20140525161129.7cff160d@aol.com>
	<53820348.509@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

Am Sun, 25 May 2014 16:50:48 +0200
schrieb selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>:

> This is already happening both with gismu and with cmavo. Some people=20
> use a word one way, and others use it another way. Try to compare
> some texts and you will find conflicting usage.
Then this is because some Lojbanists tend to be clumsy when trying to
use Lojban. They are people, after all, and people make mistakes. This
includes me. Simple: Some people use Lojban correctly, the other people
use it incorrectly. How is tinkering with the gismu list helping here?


> Old texts are also
> full of usage that is now considered incorrect, but reading them and
> knowing when they were written, we can easily understand why and
> don't need to be confused.
Just because Lojban HAD changes does not mean it makes sense to
implement *this* proposal.

> As for gismu, lots of people for instance
> use {traji} without its old x3 place
Then again they are simply ignoring Lojban as it stands today. They
are, willfully or not, breaking the rules. It=E2=80=99s simple as that.
Besides: I don=E2=80=99t even see what=E2=80=99s wrong with the =E2=80=9Col=
d=E2=80=9D x3 place of
traji.

And please give evidence for the =E2=80=9Clots of people=E2=80=9D part.

> , lots of people use {mabla} with
> a new definition.
I never saw anyone who used =E2=80=9Cmabla=E2=80=9D in itself at all. Pleas=
e give
examples.

If you are talking about lujvo like =E2=80=9Cmalglico=E2=80=9D, your argume=
nt has no basis.
=E2=80=9Cmalglico=E2=80=9D could also have been =E2=80=9Cselmalglico=E2=80=
=9D, which would be closer
to the used meaning. But it is a common convention to just drop SE rafsi
when no confusion could arise. Therefore, =E2=80=9Cmalglico=E2=80=9D perfec=
tly
represents the idea of =E2=80=9Cmabla=E2=80=9D.


Besides, your argument sounds a lot like =E2=80=9CLet usage decide!=E2=80=
=9D. Just
because you think a lot of people use things that way does not make it
right. And I don=E2=80=99t even trust the =E2=80=9Clots of people=E2=80=9D =
part unless shown
otherwise.
=20
> Regular lujvo will change automatically in usage and where needed the=20
> definitions can be updated in the dictionary.
Again: Have fun rewriting all those lujvo. :P Because I certainly won=E2=80=
=99t
do it. But if you do, please don=E2=80=99t do it on jbovlaste, at the very =
least, do
it on your own platform if you must.


> > - This will likely invalidate many texts from before the change,
> > since gismu are used so often in the language.
>=20
> Yes, but it will not make the texts uninterpretable by any means,
> just like xorlo didn't. There are actually several changes that are
> part of the BPFK cmavo specification that invalidate large chunks of
> usage (e.g. ZAhO or VA). They reflect modern usage at the cost of
> making old texts awkward or simply incorrect. The changes still
> happened, and it's good that they did, because the new definitions
> are better. So where is the difference?
The impact of changing gismu would invalidate even more texts and
certainly even larger chunks and even more texts, because the gismu are
very important in Lojban.


> I may also add that whatever changes the BPFK or whatever other=20
> language-defining body makes to the language, I *will* update my=20
> writings to reflect that, and I've written some 60 thousand words.
> This is not the problem.
Sadly, not everybody does that.

> > I am not saying these problems are neccessarily unsolvable. But the
> > proposal does not seem to address any of these problems.
>=20
> Well, instead of shooting it down categorically, you could have asked=20
> for clarification. Afterall, this is supposed to be a joint effort.
Then clarify, please. Do you think any gismu is BADLY broken, so broken
that it can not be used in any reasonable manner. (Just
=E2=80=9Cinconvenient place structure=E2=80=9D is not broken to me.) If yes=
, then tell
me which gismu are broken according to you and why. Maybe this
discussion would finally start to make sense.


But for now, you may have guessed it, I do NOT want to be part of that
joint effort to tinker around with the gismu list, because I honestly
think it is just causing a lot of trouble and is a waste of time. There
are many much more important problems. For example, Lojban could use a
lot more vocabulary, and I try to fix that by inventing lujvo and
fu'ivla. This helps the language without breaking anything. And I
repeat: I did not have any problems whatsoever with the existing gismu.

Also, I think the gains of that proposal are relatively small. Sure,
the definitions may be more straight-forward afterwards. But this alone
does not suffice to make sacrifices.

--=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.