Received-SPF: none (google.com: lojbab@lojban.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=68.230.241.214;
Message-ID: <540F391F.5050002@lojban.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 13:30:07 -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] the future of Lojban's leadership
References: <25B055499F67420FA34794323F9A95AB@gmail.com> <540B374A.9040409@lojban.org> <CAO7bV+gQQtt4qtnrj6LUWpj5rv5Qpkoy3GaKsg+CewG3-Mw+OA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMDmBpHS_h8ui41oZnKO4kt13KdVCodTa+crWzo3E9hyyBummg@mail.gmail.com> <540B8D1B.8050807@gmail.com> <oMm91o01D56Cr6M01MmBh7>
In-Reply-To: <oMm91o01D56Cr6M01MmBh7>
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

On 9/7/2014 5:45 PM, Alex Burka wrote:
> I haven=E2=80=99t lost faith in the endeavor, though I certainly can=E2=
=80=99t blame
> Dustin for doing so. I do think it will take rather longer than we
> perhaps thought when this thread began.
>
> I still think that the software-development model is the way to go.

We already used a software development model.  That is where the=20
"baseline" concept came from.  The problem is that software needs to be=20
properly documented, and normally you don't go changing it without=20
documenting what you already have.  The other problem is that the=20
"development" is supposed to already be done. Long done.  And for a lot=20
of people, the idea that they might have to go to Microsoft Lojban 8.0=20
from 7.0 is enough to make them throw up their hands in disgust and turn=20
away from the language.  They might accept small tweaks to fix bugs in=20
"Lojban XP", but they don't want to relearn anything.

> Among other things, it lets wild experimentation coexist safely with the
> carefully curated =E2=80=9Cmaster branch=E2=80=9D =E2=80=94 I mean, this =
is already happening in
> the community, but it=E2=80=99s a mess and a hodgepodge of projects,

That is what experimental language is like, and should be like.  Someone=20
else posted today on Buckminster Fuller's usages which are a form of=20
experimental English.  For anyone who did not know about those usages,=20
they would be "a mess and a hodgepodge"

> exactly
> because there=E2=80=99s no accepted process, and it doesn=E2=80=99t help =
that people who
> propose one tend to get shouted down.

Because we still haven't documented the baseline "languageware".

> Languages change when they are actively used.

Not generally by fiat.  Look how many approaches exist for English third=20
person pronouns which are gender-neutral.  All are "changes" to English,=20
but none have really caught on.

> For Lojban,
> it=E2=80=99s a fact that threatens to conflict with some of its good feat=
ures =E2=80=94
> monosemy, syntactic unambiguity, parseability, etc. One =E2=80=9Csolution=
=E2=80=9D to
> this conundrum is to freeze the vocabulary and grammar, forever. I think
> this will just result in everyone leaving (which seems to put me in
> fundamental disagreement with those who think that if we change
> anything, then everyone will leave).

This project is some 60 years old and we have a lot of history of people=20
explicitly leaving because of changes imposed from on-high.  More=20
importantly, we have the history of dozens if not hundreds of conlangs=20
whose usage has not spread because people wouldn't stop fiddling with=20
the language design.  Those that have survived and spread have stopped=20
being developed, and are simply USED.  Adding computer terminology to=20
Esperanto as it becomes needed isn't a "language change".=20
Systematically changing the endings of gismu to fit some new schema is a=20
drastic change that would likely cause many to leave or schism.

People might have tolerated running across some new word on an IRC=20
channel and looking it up; we deal with learning new vocabulary all the=20
time in natural language.  But they don't like someone telling them that=20
the old way to do something is wrong, and there is a new and better way.

> But I also think there=E2=80=99s a middle
> ground. We can allow some changes (with strict review, li=E2=80=99a sai),
> without destroying the language.

At some point, you have to stop allowing changes EXCEPT by *natural*=20
language processes (which aren't so much "reviewed" as "documented after=20
the fact".

> To one of Lojbab=E2=80=99s points (which are well taken, by the way, espe=
cially
> the one about documentation of experimental grammar being hard to find):
> in my mind, there is no way Lojban can be "considered DONE as an
> engineering effort=E2=80=9D.

Then we are fundamentally at odds.  It MUST be "done" at some point.=20
Engineering must stop, and we move to usage.

  Certainly the publication of the CLL and everything
> leading up to that was an impressive achievement, and maybe it can be
> considered =E2=80=9Calmost done=E2=80=9D, but the mere existence of the B=
PFK and the ZG
> are confirmation that the final word (whatever that means when applied
> to a living language, see above) has not been said.

The intent of the BPFK was to finish the documentation of the language,=20
making corrections to CLL as necessary.  The ZG acceptance of xorlo as a=20
major bug-fix because the community felt that the original design COULD=20
NOT be properly documented.

> Moreover, it=E2=80=99s hard
> to deny that changes have happened and become accepted by large portions
> of the community since the publication of the CLL: the BPFK morphology.
> xorlo was adopted into the ZG. Nearly everyone uses dotside for names.

"Dotside" is not really an engineering change, but rather using one rule=20
(the dot-pause, which is allowed between any two words) to allow another=20
rule to be ignored.  Indeed it has been accepted because the listener=20
likely won't even notice that it is being used.  And likely a dotside=20
user will not have a problem with the speech of a non-dotside speaker,=20
provided that the latter follows the pre-dotside rules.

xorlo was proposed and discussed within the BPFK as a solution to=20
problems in documenting the gadri.  If the documentation had been=20
finished earlier, there would have been no need for the ZG.  (Probably=20
true for dotside as well.)

> Modern {ka} with {ce=E2=80=99u}.

should be documented as part of the baseline.  ce'u predates said baseline.

  The experimental gismu {kibro}

never heard of it.

  and cmavo
> {di=E2=80=99ai}. vu=E2=80=99o po=E2=80=99onai.

vu'o and po'onai should both be part of the baseline (not that I=20
remember what the latter means; I am sure it was discussed back in the=20
90s).  I have no idea what di'ai is.  That is the problem with=20
experimental usages.  They aren't documented, and people like me would=20
have no idea what to do with the word if we run across it in text.  Some=20
might try to figure it out like Jabberwocky (but the coinages in=20
Jabberwocky pretty much all correspond to brivla and not cmavo).

I am least interested in getting bogged down
> in legalese and bylaws if such things turn out to obstruct the use of
> Lojban and encourage it to stagnate (which is what=E2=80=99s arguably hap=
pened
> in the last decade).

It hasn't prevented anyone from using the language as they see fit so=20
far.  You won't hear me complaining because you use "di'ai".  I just=20
won't understand you.  If we're on IRC I can ask you what it means, but=20
if it is in text, I will have no clue.

The "stagnation" seems to me that people want to document and approve=20
new stuff without documenting the older stuff.  I don't see any easy way=20
to resolve this impasse, but if there is, it would require someone to=20
write CLL sections covering new material to replace or add to the=20
existing text.  If someone were doing this and collecting it somewhere,=20
AND the original baseline documentation was being finished, we could=20
deal with it.  We do need a new edition of CLL, probably next year, and=20
the argument becomes what to put into it.  Likely the decision will=20
effectively be made by those that do the writing.

> That being said, yes, I=E2=80=99d like to join the LLG.

Noted.

> Anyway, that=E2=80=99s my two cents. I feel strongly that progress is nee=
ded and
> that there=E2=80=99s a way to get there, but I don=E2=80=99t claim to hav=
e all the
> answers of course. I am glad that there will be a meeting soon, because
> that=E2=80=99s at least potential progress.

There is a meeting every year.  But there hasn't been progress every=20
year because most years, no one has any issues to bring up.  The coming=20
meeting looks like it will resemble those of 2002-2003 when Robin and=20
others stepped in and took over.  I stepped down as president, only=20
resuming the job when Matt resigned in 2010 (and I'll probably step down=20
again gladly if I get the feeling that someone is capable and willing to=20
fulfill the organizational responsibilities of the President.  And some=20
day someone will have to take over the Virginia representative spot,=20
which exists solely for legal reasons).

lojbab


--=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.