Received-SPF: none (google.com: lojbab@lojban.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=68.230.241.217;
Message-ID: <53F7D98A.5020101@lojban.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:00:10 -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] Revitalizing LLG: Suggestions for the 2014 annual meeting
References: <fef8c82f-c3b3-4f99-925b-9b940d0c5913@googlegroups.com>	<53F79061.5000706@lojban.org> <hv3V1o01H56Cr6M01v3W2t>
In-Reply-To: <hv3V1o01H56Cr6M01v3W2t>
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 8/22/2014 3:03 PM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> If we are talking about the LLG meetings in a mailing list then using
> Lojban and only Lojban is a *must*.

Only if we wish the participation in meetings to drop even further (and 
as it is most members are silent after the initial indication of presence).

> Is this a huge problem for anyone of using Lojban?

Probably.  I'm not sure that I could do it, and actually be able to 
communicate.

>If yes then may be this person should go to
> lojban-beginners or lojban mailing list first?

A lot of members may have left those lists because the discussions are 
more arcane than they would wish, and/or they don't know the language 
sufficiently well.

Remember that the qualifications for membership have always been an 
interest in and commitment to the organization, rather than to the language.

> So I suggest using only Lojban for any official documents.

We aren't getting a set of meeting minutes in English.  Do you think 
Robin will be able to more easily produce them in Lojban?  And he is 
presumably as fluent a Lojbanist as we have.

We would have to start by having a translation of the Bylaws into Lojban 
(and agreeing on that translation).  I would then suggest translating 
whichever book of parliamentary procedure that John Cowan specifies into 
Lojban.  Otherwise we lack the terminology for a parliamentary meeting.

> I also suggest translating existing documents into a code with members
> of the LLG (or at least by le jatna) signing them as official ones.

Not sure what this means.  Code kia?  Which existing documents?  Any 
translation of the Bylaws that was going to supplant the current English 
ones would probably have to be approved as a Bylaw amendment in order to 
be treated as "official".

Of course, given that CLL is one of the baseline documents, you may be 
calling for a translation of CLL into Lojban.  That would be an 
interesting challenge, and a rather voluminous one.  We'd need 
all-Lojban dictionary-quality gismu and cmavo lists too, and I never did 
accomplish the dictionary-quality cmavo list in English.

> Official documents initially written in Lojban can be translated to
> English later.

Which ones are those?

I'm not trying to say that the idea isn't laudable - in the (very) long 
term.  But we aren't anywhere near that capability now, and the members 
would almost certainly reject such a proposal if forced to consider it. 
  After all, they didn't think much of my including even one sentence in 
Lojban the last time I tried.

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.