Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of durka42@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c04::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c04::230;
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 17:43:28 -0400
From: Alex Burka <durka42@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-ID: <17E712D4DD354F3C94FCB46D376A6529@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <540F6802.3070709@gmail.com>
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>
 <540F391F.5050002@lojban.org> <540F6802.3070709@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] the future of Lojban's leadership
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="540f7480_38d82e71_184"
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--540f7480_38d82e71_184
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Thanks, And, I agree with nearly all of what you said, though I may write m=
ore later. One quick clarification, I really didn=E2=80=99t mean {vu=E2=80=
=99o po=E2=80=99onai} as another example of experimentalism =E2=80=94 just =
meant to say =E2=80=9Cetc=E2=80=9D. Sorry for the sloppy jboglish. =20


On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 at 4:50 PM, And Rosta wrote:

> Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG, On 09/09/2014 18:30:
> > The other problem is that the "development" is supposed to already be
> > done. Long done. And for a lot of people, the idea that they might
> > have to go to Microsoft Lojban 8.0 from 7.0 is enough to make them
> > throw up their hands in disgust and turn away from the language. They
> > might accept small tweaks to fix bugs in "Lojban XP", but they don't
> > want to relearn anything.
> > =20
> =20
> =20
> It seems to me you're setting up a largely false dichotomy. Most of what =
remains to be done is to complete the design where it is incomplete. So the=
 choice is whether to do that explicitly or leave it to usage. Not much rel=
earning entailed by that. There is the additional choice of whether to make=
 simplifications that require a handful of individuals to do some relearnin=
g now, for the benefit of making the task for all future learners much simp=
ler, but that is a separate debate.
> =20
> > People might have tolerated running across some new word on an IRC
> > channel and looking it up; we deal with learning new vocabulary all
> > the time in natural language. But they don't like someone telling
> > them that the old way to do something is wrong, and there is a new
> > and better way.
> > =20
> =20
> =20
> Are there still many that feel thus? I wonder if it's a myth that gets pe=
rpetuated because you propagate it so insistently.
> =20
> In old usage, "le" was standardly not used in a baseline-compliant way; c=
f how "le nu", "le ka", "le du'u" used to be default in usage. In old and n=
ew usage (for new usage, I'm relying on Selpa'i's observation), logical sco=
pe of syntactic clausemates is generally ambiguous. How many people are goi=
ng to want to preserve old ways that aren't baseline-compliant or are rampa=
ntly logically ambiguous?
> =20
> > This project is some 60 years old and we have a lot of history of
> > people explicitly leaving because of changes imposed from on-high.
> > =20
> =20
> =20
> Not in the history of Lojban proper, of course, because changes haven't b=
een imposed from on-high. So all the folk leaving for the last 27 years hav=
e been leaving for other reasons; disgruntlement at the unfinished design a=
nd the political sclerosis that prevents its completion must be the major r=
eason why people leave Lojban, out of all reasons that have to do with some=
 sort of disaffection with Lojban.
> =20
> > More importantly, we have the history of dozens if not hundreds of
> > conlangs whose usage has not spread because people wouldn't stop
> > fiddling with the language design.
> > =20
> =20
> =20
> I think you'd be hard-pressed to identify these dozens if not hundreds of=
 conlangs whose usage would have spread if people had stopped fiddling with=
 the language design.
> =20
> > At some point, you have to stop allowing changes EXCEPT by *natural*
> > language processes (which aren't so much "reviewed" as "documented
> > after the fact".
> > =20
> > > in my mind, there is no way Lojban can be "considered DONE as an
> > > engineering effort".
> > > =20
> > =20
> > =20
> > Then we are fundamentally at odds. It MUST be "done" at some point.
> > Engineering must stop, and we move to usage.
> > =20
> =20
> =20
> Especially in the case of a language like Lojban, one expects that there =
will always be a strong strand of prescriptivism, in areas where usage devi=
ates from the official design or from logic. Prescriptivism is a form of en=
gineering. It has a bad name in the domain of natlangs, mostly because actu=
al prescriptivists tend to be foolish, but to people attracted to Lojban by=
 its explicit definition and ostensible logical basis, rational prescriptiv=
ism is likely to be welcome.
> =20
> > The experimental gismu {kibro}
> > =20
> > never heard of it.
> > =20
> > and cmavo
> > > {di'ai}. vu'o po'onai.
> > =20
> > =20
> > vu'o and po'onai should both be part of the baseline (not that I
> > remember what the latter means; I am sure it was discussed back in
> > the 90s).
> > =20
> =20
> =20
> It was discussed back in the 90s, but is it in CLL? I can't find a way to=
 search CLL online (-- there must be one, but googling doesn't bring it up)=
. It's not in CLL Ch 13 where po'o is introduced.
> =20
> > I have no idea what di'ai is. That is the problem with
> > experimental usages. They aren't documented, and people like me would
> > have no idea what to do with the word if we run across it in text.
> > =20
> =20
> =20
> I went to the humungous effort of looking kibro and di'ai up in jbovlaste=
. To find jbovlaste, one googles "jbovlaste". Or, even quicker, google "jbo=
vlaste kibro" and you get the answer in one step. For users of handheld dev=
ices, Gleki has made an android jbovlaste app -- it's excellent! And it's d=
ead easy to use even for those of us who are weary at having to learn new t=
echnology.
> =20
> --And.
> =20
> -- =20
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Go=
ogle Groups "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/l=
ojban/_juGorRhWtI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojba=
n+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com (mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com)=
.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com (mailto:lojb=
an@googlegroups.com).
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> =20
> =20


--=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.

--540f7480_38d82e71_184
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


                <div>
                    Thanks, And, I agree with nearly all of what you said, =
though I may write more later. One quick clarification, I really didn=E2=80=
=99t mean {vu=E2=80=99o po=E2=80=99onai} as another example of experimental=
ism =E2=80=94 just meant to say =E2=80=9Cetc=E2=80=9D. Sorry for the sloppy=
 jboglish.
                </div>
                <div></div>
                =20
                <p style=3D"color: #A0A0A8;">On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 =
at 4:50 PM, And Rosta wrote:</p>
                <blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"border-left-style:solid;=
border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;">
                    <span><div><div><div>Bob LeChevalier, President and Fou=
nder - LLG, On 09/09/2014 18:30:</div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div>T=
he other problem is that the "development" is supposed to already be</div><=
div>done. Long done. And for a lot of people, the idea that they might</div=
><div>have to go to Microsoft Lojban 8.0 from 7.0 is enough to make them</d=
iv><div>throw up their hands in disgust and turn away from the language. Th=
ey</div><div>might accept small tweaks to fix bugs in "Lojban XP", but they=
 don't</div><div>want to relearn anything.</div></div></blockquote><div><br=
></div><div>It seems to me you're setting up a largely false dichotomy. Mos=
t of what remains to be done is to complete the design where it is incomple=
te. So the choice is whether to do that explicitly or leave it to usage. No=
t much relearning entailed by that. There is the additional choice of wheth=
er to make simplifications that require a handful of individuals to do some=
 relearning now, for the benefit of making the task for all future learners=
 much simpler, but that is a separate debate.</div><div><br></div><blockquo=
te type=3D"cite"><div><div>People might have tolerated running across some =
new word on an IRC</div><div>channel and looking it up; we deal with learni=
ng new vocabulary all</div><div>the time in natural language. But they don'=
t like someone telling</div><div>them that the old way to do something is w=
rong, and there is a new</div><div>and better way.</div></div></blockquote>=
<div><br></div><div>Are there still many that feel thus? I wonder if it's a=
 myth that gets perpetuated because you propagate it so insistently.</div><=
div><br></div><div>In old usage, "le" was standardly not used in a baseline=
-compliant way; cf how "le nu", "le ka", "le du'u" used to be default in us=
age. In old and new usage (for new usage, I'm relying on Selpa'i's observat=
ion), logical scope of syntactic clausemates is generally ambiguous. How ma=
ny people are going to want to preserve old ways that aren't baseline-compl=
iant or are rampantly logically ambiguous?</div><div><br></div><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><div><div>This project is some 60 years old and we have a lot=
 of history of</div><div>people explicitly leaving because of changes impos=
ed from on-high.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not in the his=
tory of Lojban proper, of course, because changes haven't been imposed from=
 on-high. So all the folk leaving for the last 27 years have been leaving f=
or other reasons; disgruntlement at the unfinished design and the political=
 sclerosis that prevents its completion must be the major reason why people=
 leave Lojban, out of all reasons that have to do with some sort of disaffe=
ction with Lojban.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div>=
More importantly, we have the history of dozens if not hundreds of</div><di=
v>conlangs whose usage has not spread because people wouldn't stop</div><di=
v>fiddling with the language design.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div=
><div>I think you'd be hard-pressed to identify these dozens if not hundred=
s of conlangs whose usage would have spread if people had stopped fiddling =
with the language design.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><di=
v><div>At some point, you have to stop allowing changes EXCEPT by *natural*=
</div><div>language processes (which aren't so much "reviewed" as "document=
ed</div><div>after the fact".</div><div><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"=
><div><div>in my mind, there is no way Lojban can be "considered DONE as an=
</div><div>engineering effort".</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div=
>Then we are fundamentally at odds. It MUST be "done" at some point.</div><=
div>Engineering must stop, and we move to usage.</div></div></blockquote><d=
iv><br></div><div>Especially in the case of a language like Lojban, one exp=
ects that there will always be a strong strand of prescriptivism, in areas =
where usage deviates from the official design or from logic. Prescriptivism=
 is a form of engineering. It has a bad name in the domain of natlangs, mos=
tly because actual prescriptivists tend to be foolish, but to people attrac=
ted to Lojban by its explicit definition and ostensible logical basis, rati=
onal prescriptivism is likely to be welcome.</div><div><br></div><blockquot=
e type=3D"cite"><div><div>  The experimental gismu {kibro}</div><div><br></=
div><div>never heard of it.</div><div><br></div><div>  and cmavo</div><bloc=
kquote type=3D"cite"><div>{di'ai}. vu'o po'onai.</div></blockquote><div><br=
></div><div>vu'o and po'onai should both be part of the baseline (not that =
I</div><div>remember what the latter means; I am sure it was discussed back=
 in</div><div>the 90s).</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It was =
discussed back in the 90s, but is it in CLL? I can't find a way to search C=
LL online (-- there must be one, but googling doesn't bring it up). It's no=
t in CLL Ch 13 where po'o is introduced.</div><div><br></div><blockquote ty=
pe=3D"cite"><div><div>I have no idea what di'ai is. That is the problem wit=
h</div><div>experimental usages. They aren't documented, and people like me=
 would</div><div>have no idea what to do with the word if we run across it =
in text.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I went to the humungou=
s effort of looking kibro and di'ai up in jbovlaste. To find jbovlaste, one=
 googles "jbovlaste". Or, even quicker, google "jbovlaste kibro" and you ge=
t the answer in one step. For users of handheld devices, Gleki has made an =
android jbovlaste app -- it's excellent! And it's dead easy to use even for=
 those of us who are weary at having to learn new technology.</div><div><br=
></div><div>--And.</div><div><br></div><div>-- </div><div>You received this=
 message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban=
" group.</div><div>To unsubscribe from this topic, visit <a href=3D"https:/=
/groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/_juGorRhWtI/unsubscribe">https://groups.g=
oogle.com/d/topic/lojban/_juGorRhWtI/unsubscribe</a>.</div><div>To unsubscr=
ibe from this group and all its topics, send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:=
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a=
>.</div><div>To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@=
googlegroups.com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.</div><div>Visit this group a=
t <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http://groups.google.co=
m/group/lojban</a>.</div><div>For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://gr=
oups.google.com/d/optout">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.</div></di=
v></div></span>
                =20
                =20
                =20
                =20
                </blockquote>
                =20
                <div>
                    <br>
                </div>
           =20

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--540f7480_38d82e71_184--