Received-SPF: none (google.com: lojbab@lojban.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=68.230.241.214;
Message-ID: <53F89A74.8000903@lojban.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:43:16 -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> <hsnV1o00b56Cr6M01snX90> <53F79061.5000706@lojban.org> <iDE41o00856Cr6M01DE5ob>
In-Reply-To: <iDE41o00856Cr6M01DE5ob>
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=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

On 8/23/2014 9:14 AM, And Rosta wrote:
> Robert LeChevalier, On 22/08/2014 19:48:
>> On 8/22/2014 12:47 PM, selpa'i wrote:
>>> In the 2003 annual meeting there was a movement to make Lojban the
>>> language used during LLG meetings. It failed, but maybe something
>>> similar could be considered again. Perhaps a certain percentage of the
>>> discussions should be in Lojban, if 100% is not feasible yet. A "Lojban
>>> Quota" so to speak. Opinions?
>
> It would be an impediment to getting the work of the LLG done. It would
> make participation more onerous or impossible, for those with inadequate
> knowledge of grammar or lexis. (For me, now, it would be too onerous.)
> It would make communication less effectual, with people less sure what
> others meant; though things may have improved nowadays, it was my
> experience, 10--20 years ago I found that allegedly fluent speakers
> tended both to unwittingly produce sentences that did not mean was the
> speaker wanted to say (-- xorlo will have fixed some of this) and be
> unable to understand grammatical text that did not conform to prevailing
> stylistic norms.

Probably all true.  It would be interesting to see if anyone could 
produce quasi-live translation of a meeting into Lojban, even at email 
speeds, but we would have to have some non-trivial meeting content to 
make the test useful.

>> A couple years ago, I started the meeting with a Lojban sentence, and
>> was basically told that people no longer wanted to do this.
>
> I haven't been able to recall these messages or find them in my archive.

The 2002 and 2003 stuff is in the minutes on the website.

 From my posting 9 Oct 2011:
> mi xusra le co'a nanca dikni nunpenmi be la lojbangirz be'o pe li renopapa

> I did, tho, find a pertinent message from Robin:
> Robin Lee Powell, On 12/10/2011 20:32:
>> As a general comment, I wish to point out that I've made a habit of
>> *discouraging* people from joining the LLG.

That was one of the responses to my post. (12 October for those not 
recognizing the UK norm for dates).

> The main requirement for LLG membership is (for the time being, at
> least) goodwill towards Lojban and the LLG, and a commitment to be
> present at the annual meetings.

Agreed.

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.