Received: from mail-we0-f183.google.com ([74.125.82.183]:46053) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XRi3z-0008HD-Jn for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:36:01 -0700 Received: by mail-we0-f183.google.com with SMTP id k48sf289929wev.20 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:35:52 -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=1cLuIPKZOAeoWbw9YYejHMsvC0DtBH+t9DKmASQ1SCk=; b=PxTdYJfktLUqqMhKAcMb8j04O8nI2uCB4x7mq6UgVPFL2LdmaDydQrySO2Pgm2HXv3 l4j2KKSM+fhiM6fL3KxrxWZPAY1rqgGP/ru+DAeGltjWqH9cfARn2hIjUvbxVrhLmWL1 vMw+kBgEwvOdR9QpX0tEh0WHCc9cwrIqz9oxX++G5GQwjYPVosJE9LLuDiY3qwoI2wgK e6j0a7ZzA8Oez/HEM9jUPMcpHji6f/lX5iuCJXuRsD9ZnOfOE89q2V/JLeTzeB8oMGZq w3cnBiKIX12zRsU/o1iKqEHNx51Kth+sIRXCiBl6ZIgezr7zWHzHnPWbq8inDzhX2q3d HTSA== X-Received: by 10.152.8.11 with SMTP id n11mr596847laa.2.1410356152666; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:35:52 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.197.98 with SMTP id it2ls591274lac.31.gmail; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:35:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.137.230 with SMTP id ql6mr304777lbb.13.1410356151788; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com (mail-wi0-x231.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ht7si279984wib.0.2014.09.10.06.35.51 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::231; Received: by mail-wi0-x231.google.com with SMTP id em10so2180376wid.16 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:35:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.203.8 with SMTP id km8mr50265493wjc.51.1410356151244; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.89.193 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:35:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <54104F32.6090308@gmail.com> References: <25B055499F67420FA34794323F9A95AB@gmail.com> <540B374A.9040409@lojban.org> <540B8D1B.8050807@gmail.com> <540F391F.5050002@lojban.org> <540F6802.3070709@gmail.com> <54104F32.6090308@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:35:51 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] the future of Lojban's leadership 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:c05::231 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=047d7bae47e666dec10502b62126 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --047d7bae47e666dec10502b62126 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2014-09-10 17:16 GMT+04:00 And Rosta : > Gleki Arxokuna, On 10/09/2014 06:51: > >> 2014-09-10 0:50 GMT+04:00 And Rosta > and.rosta@gmail.com>>: >> 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 usage. In old >> and new usage (for new usage, I'm relying on Selpa'i's observation), >> logical scope of syntactic clausemates is generally ambiguous. How many >> people are going to want to preserve old ways that aren't >> baseline-compliant or are rampantly logically ambiguous? >> >> The task is to adapt theory to facts, i.e. usage, not adapt reality >> to facts provided this doesn't lead to syntactic ambiguity which is a >> defining feature of lojban. >> > > There are three forces that potentially shape and define what is to be > deemed correct: > > 1. usage > 2. official codification > 3. logic (mapping between phonological and logical forms), consistency, > regularity, unambiguity, integrity > > & possibly a fourth: > > 4. unofficial consensus of opinion (or of influential opinion) > > (4) is important for English, maybe not for Lojban. > > All can conflict. Which trumps which? For me it's 3>2>1. For Bob I hope > (because it's a position I can respect) it's 1>2>3. What do you think it is? > For me it's 2. codification > 3. logic > 4. consensus > 1. usage although 4. defines 1. and partially 3. > At the time I ceased active involvement with Lojban I had come to the view > that that the community was wedded to 1>2>3 or 2>1>3 with immutable 2, but > now I see that there are currents of opinion -- much stronger than ever in > my time -- unwilling to accept either of those. Surely the only foreseeable > outcomes are that the ultraconservative camp withers or that there is > schism. > > 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. >> >> 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. >> >> He won't. I can confirm his words. I've got a lot of people from >> Russian group who immediately stopped learning Lojban when they >> learnt that CLL was no longer valid. >> > > Bob was talking about conlangs not conlangers. > Usage of conlangs depends on users i.e. conlanger (although i preferred to use "conlanger" for the term "inventor of conlang") > I suppose your Russian drop-outs must have been fervent devotees of > {1|immutable2} > 3. What was it attracted them to Lojban in the first > place, such deviation from that ranking quenched their interest? There is CLL which is the reference grammar. When someone says (and proves) that the refgram is no longer valid the language stops to exist. This way Lojban loses one of its selling points: the most complete/described human language ever. CLL is the first (and the best imo) book teaching Lojban. What others offer instead of CLL? Nothing. Just waiting for Robin to do something instead of them. > > That's why any changes to basic gismu, to common usage is a way to >> the final destruction of the language as it happened to other >> conlangs. >> > > You seem to have a strange notion of what language destruction is. Destruction is exactly when you ignore or invalidate one thing and not providing alternatives. Those tinkerers (including xorlofiers back in 2003) threw CLL away and thus imo destroyed the original plan of a stable language and doomed the language to the fate of Loglan. Only the lack of the third alternative (a new loglang) prevented this community from complete dying. > You seem to think that a language exists if and only if it has speakers in > our world. I accept that that's not a nonsensical view, tho I do think it's > utterly wrong, but it's hard to have rational discussion if we use the same > set of terms with such fundamentally different and incompatible senses. The existence of speakers doesn't matter. If you have selling points you will get speakers. The second selling point is monoparsing. But they removed the first selling point. > > > For users of handheld devices, Gleki has made an android jbovlaste >> app -- it's excellent! >> >> Huh? >> > > There is a Google Play app maker called Vorgoron who made the app and gave > it a description that says "Author - Gleki Arxokuna", which had misled me > into thinking you were Vorgoron. Looking at Vorgoron's other apps, it seems > likely that Vorgoron is Russian, so likely somebody you know. Oh, I see. I just offered him to include a dictionary into their distributions. I don't even remember who is the original author of that dictionary. > > --And. > > -- > 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. > -- 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. --047d7bae47e666dec10502b62126 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2014-09-10 17:16 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
Gleki Arxokuna, On 10/09/2014 06:51:
2014-09-10 0:50 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>>:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 In old usage, "le" was standardly not used in a bas= eline-compliant way; cf how "le nu", "le ka", "le = du'u" used to be default in usage. In old and new usage (for new u= sage, I'm relying on Selpa'i's observation), logical scope of s= yntactic clausemates is generally ambiguous. How many people are going to w= ant to preserve old ways that aren't baseline-compliant or are rampantl= y logically ambiguous?

The task is to adapt theory to facts, i.e. usage, not adapt reality
to facts provided this doesn't lead to syntactic ambiguity which is a defining feature of lojban.

There are three forces that potentially shape and define what is to be deem= ed correct:

1. usage
2. official codification
3. logic (mapping between phonological and logical forms), consistency, reg= ularity, unambiguity, integrity

& possibly a fourth:

4. unofficial consensus of opinion (or of influential opinion)

(4) is important for English, maybe not for Lojban.

All can conflict. Which trumps which? For me it's 3>2>1. For Bob = I hope (because it's a position I can respect) it's 1>2>3. Wh= at do you think it is?

For me it's = 2. codification > 3. logic > 4. consensus > 1. usage
alt= hough 4. defines 1. and partially 3.


At the time I ceased active involvement with Lojban I had come to the view = that that the community was wedded to 1>2>3 or 2>1>3 with immut= able 2, but now I see that there are currents of opinion -- much stronger t= han ever in my time -- unwilling to accept either of those. Surely the only= foreseeable outcomes are that the ultraconservative camp withers or that t= here is schism.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 More importantly, we have the history of dozens= if not hundreds of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 conlangs whose usage has not spread because peo= ple wouldn't stop
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 fiddling with the language design.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 I think you'd be hard-pressed to identify these dozens if= not hundreds of conlangs whose usage would have spread if people had stopp= ed fiddling with the language design.

He won't. I can confirm his words. I've got a lot of people from Russian group who immediately stopped learning Lojban when they
learnt that CLL was no longer valid.

 Bob was talking about conlangs not conlangers.
Usage o= f conlangs depends on users i.e. conlanger =C2=A0(although i preferred to u= se "conlanger" for the term "inventor of conlang")


I suppose your Russian drop-outs must have been fervent devotees of {1|immu= table2} > 3. What was it attracted them to Lojban in the first place, su= ch deviation from that ranking quenched their interest?
There is CLL which is the reference grammar.
When so= meone says (and proves) that the refgram is no longer valid the language st= ops to exist.
This way Lojban loses one of its selling points: th= e most complete/described human language ever.

CLL= is the first (and the best imo) book teaching Lojban.

=
What others offer instead of CLL? Nothing. Just waiting for Robin to d= o something instead of them.



That's why any changes to basic gismu, to common usage is a way to
the final destruction of the language as it happened to other
conlangs.

 You seem to have a strange notion of what language destruction is.

Destruction is exactly when you ignore or invalidat= e one thing and not providing alternatives.
Those tinkerers (incl= uding xorlofiers back in 2003) threw CLL away and thus imo destroyed the or= iginal plan of a stable language and doomed the language to the fate of Log= lan. Only the lack of the third alternative (a new loglang) prevented this = community from complete dying.

=C2=A0
You seem to think that a language exists if and only if it has s= peakers in our world. I accept that that's not a nonsensical view, tho = I do think it's utterly wrong, but it's hard to have rational discu= ssion if we use the same set of terms with such fundamentally different and= incompatible senses.

The existence of spea= kers doesn't matter. If you have selling points you will get speakers.<= /div>
The second selling point is monoparsing.
But they r= emoved the first selling point.
=C2=A0


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 For users of handheld devices, Gleki has made an android jbov= laste app -- it's excellent!

Huh?

There is a Google Play app maker called Vorgoron who made the app and gave = it a description that says "Author - Gleki Arxokuna", which had m= isled me into thinking you were Vorgoron. Looking at Vorgoron's other a= pps, it seems likely that Vorgoron is Russian, so likely somebody you know.=

Oh, I see. I just offered him to include a= dictionary into their distributions. I don't even remember who is the = original author of that dictionary.

=


--And.

--
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+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.

--
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.
--047d7bae47e666dec10502b62126--