Received-SPF: none (google.com: lojbab@lojban.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=68.230.241.215;
Message-ID: <53F78CEB.7010606@lojban.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 14:33:15 -0400
From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Revitalizing LLG: Suggestions for the 2014 annual meeting
References: <fef8c82f-c3b3-4f99-925b-9b940d0c5913@googlegroups.com> <53F3E554.2040703@lojban.org> <3f25ad84-f8bd-42ea-975b-10c2a107cc39@googlegroups.com> <gqlZ1o00N56Cr6M01qlaV1>
In-Reply-To: <gqlZ1o00N56Cr6M01qlaV1>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

On 8/19/2014 10:45 PM, Jacob Errington wrote:
> On 19 August 2014 21:50, Spacenut <matthew@igregoire.com
> <mailto:matthew@igregoire.com>> wrote:
>
>     I  think the way people use certain things has changed slightly. For
>     instance, in lo mi jufra, when "lo me lo drata ku moi" was used, I
>     looked up "moi" in the CLL. My understanding is that it can now
>     attach to any sumti, meaning "something of a set related to <sumti>.
>     Just little stuff like that.
>
>
> It's not that {moi} attaches to sumti; {moi} can attach to a preceding
> {me}-clause.
> The CLL *does* discuss this in the chapter on mekso, as a way to allow
> mekso before a MOI, which is otherwise not possible:
> https://lojban.github.io/cll/18/11/
> This has since been generalized, at least in the case of {moi}, to allow
> for arbitrary sumti in the preceing {me}-clause.
> That generalization is documented in a BPFK section:
> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Numeric+selbri

Ah...  And that was exactly what we had in mind for much of the mekso 
design that doesn't make sense - enabling conversions that otherwise 
cannot be expressed.  (Someone said that mekso wasn't well thought out. 
  I think it was very well thought out (maybe too well though out) but 
far too poorly documented and explained.  Cowan tried in CLL, but there 
wasn't enough attempted usage at that point to make it evident what 
wasn't clearly enough described.

> You're right that the way people use things has changed though. Just
> look at how we use {ka}-abstractions in IRC some day.

Someday, I'd like to go on IRC and see someone using the language at 
all.  Usually (and I don't try too often any more) I see several dozen 
bots logged in perpetually and no one actually saying anything.

> It's because of this divergeance between the CLL and usage that we need
> some way to update the CLL, which is not possible until the publication
> of CLL1.1.

My suggestion would be to have a section of the tiki that has proposed 
rewrites of CLL sections that would reflect such actual usage.  They are 
what is really needed to evaluate the proposals anyway, and if the text 
is written, then it is easy for Robin or whoever to apply the change 
once it is approved.  Just make sure that the section is marked as a 
proposal based on a deviation in actual usage from the existing 
specification, ideally including some actual corpus examples supporting 
that it is actual usage.

It won't be part of CLL until after CLL1.1 is done, but at least the 
documentation gets done.

lojbab

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.