Received: from mail-we0-f188.google.com ([74.125.82.188]:60855) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XLBjx-00083d-5D for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 06:52:23 -0700 Received: by mail-we0-f188.google.com with SMTP id t60sf1224821wes.25 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 06:52:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=jBWA/PAj4McetK+BtVRCzbmJBvJvwd3IVBfv+6uFYto=; b=G8Hl64p0y5eSbmLyE0mNUJOJjeMnzJN1wbnI3Y6bgGn4zZQFoDN1nPuou4MaEnXw1l VxL3xwzAfXRsfFqFtOli7Yro7xUuIi+ulHU6WBTJoF4FhbuaDpsCzpVou6PTTYrpPfid jGs4pBS8iausHt6o4tFG8+N/DBeuotK+0pPsyNSGdMC82ZBCLjN2zsITtUOExqjp2orB +i32tDYvtv4z49uhYRypSLjti0/QBVMoDPmO4gTNaA6JUVXsr9UeUw/sXmTeckqDwb1v yg5bThUKxDKKJ8nen2W5FVwgpkH1gHaxqo+RmX6JRErwEO6YlKUlf6hPm6ejtW7dLD8D T0NQ== X-Received: by 10.180.109.112 with SMTP id hr16mr19205wib.12.1408801934165; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 06:52:14 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.207.68 with SMTP id lu4ls81656wic.17.gmail; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 06:52:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.2.130 with SMTP id 2mr21846wju.5.1408801933661; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 06:52:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x229.google.com (mail-wg0-x229.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c00::229]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m6si124233wik.2.2014.08.23.06.52.13 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 23 Aug 2014 06:52:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::229; Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id z12so11471595wgg.12 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 06:52:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.7.163 with SMTP id k3mr10263141wia.0.1408801933522; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 06:52:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.142.148 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 06:52:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53F89A74.8000903@lojban.org> References: <53F79061.5000706@lojban.org> <53F89A74.8000903@lojban.org> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 17:52:13 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Revitalizing LLG: Suggestions for the 2014 annual meeting From: Gleki Arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::229 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51f925fce804405014c4231 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --bcaec51f925fce804405014c4231 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2014-08-23 17:43 GMT+04:00 Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG < lojbab@lojban.org>: > 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. > I'm ready to make translations *from* Lojban so that future newbies could easily read logs of those meetings before they are fluent speakers. As for translations to Lojban this is usually tiresome (as with any translator's work: the balance of precision, conciseness, beauty of the resulting text). But indeed may be others will be able to help me. -- 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. --bcaec51f925fce804405014c4231 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



2014-08-23 17:43 GMT+04:00 Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder -= LLG <lojbab@lojban.org>:
On 8/23/2014 9:14 AM, And Ro= sta 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 "Lojba= n
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.=C2=A0 It would be interesting to see if anyone could pro= duce 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 tes= t useful.

I'm ready to make translations *from* = Lojban so that future newbies could easily read logs of those meetings befo= re they are fluent speakers.

As for translations t= o Lojban this is usually tiresome (as with any translator's work: the b= alance of precision, conciseness, beauty of the resulting text). But indeed= may be others will be able to help me.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--bcaec51f925fce804405014c4231--