Received: from mail-pd0-f186.google.com ([209.85.192.186]:49213) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XRiw8-0000b9-5C for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:31:57 -0700 Received: by mail-pd0-f186.google.com with SMTP id v10sf1715642pde.13 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:31:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :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=hoNNYmkVi08XeiTJF0XUvygiEW+MVY7nz3YWHFR45Ng=; b=CX6Uu3ThplQF7lc2FlHaqLTI+ZK2ZPLjhnJyzccxAxtjYMqydlBtCtjlNzjYMhWvfX as30BMgO9D2fxwh5Qyu3Q+S9358VFZQVM7mYjHse5WPwJiZPZTcEeEBrqcyemgsqYuL0 TWYKSJIGOoF37489m0RgsvsLTpPqP0Il2XqOdy3y1a3z+rkPMpv/NpHzPHNBM1OAUcUi FCW8f8jW8tUJfSOOutOEBUPQcqGbu+tHwHZwsX3hzg2Z1DWfSK0IJGwGS7sMXmLCVEXH o/0aC8+cbmcWNP8OJsU/DTRmSiRf4OR/wtRg642o58lC1HKgRiALnO8k7OjFMwQnGxa9 aZKg== X-Received: by 10.50.43.196 with SMTP id y4mr492018igl.13.1410359509773; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:31:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.51.17.3 with SMTP id ga3ls2728938igd.35.gmail; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:31:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.187.8 with SMTP id fo8mr26525801pac.32.1410359509270; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x22f.google.com (mail-qc0-x22f.google.com [2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22f]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ld1si1325437qcb.3.2014.09.10.07.31.49 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of durka42@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22f; Received: by mail-qc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id c9so19359037qcz.6 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:31:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.60.129 with SMTP id p1mr28208924qah.99.1410359509019; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [2607:f470:6:400d:3077:db2d:100::] ([2607:f470:6:400d:2086:a501:b773:5e03]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l46sm12428089qgd.27.2014.09.10.07.31.47 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 10:31:46 -0400 From: Alex Burka To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-ID: <427B7F67146340678BA2DDD9E75299C0@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <25B055499F67420FA34794323F9A95AB@gmail.com> <540B374A.9040409@lojban.org> <540B8D1B.8050807@gmail.com> <540F391F.5050002@lojban.org> <540F6802.3070709@gmail.com> <54104F32.6090308@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] the future of Lojban's leadership X-Mailer: sparrow 1.6.4 (build 1178) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: durka42@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of durka42@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22f as permitted sender) smtp.mail=durka42@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="541060d2_3b0a3b87_184" X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --541060d2_3b0a3b87_184 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Gleki, you=E2=80=99re not making any sense. In one breath we=E2=80=99re hol= ding a bonfire and torching CLLs, while in the next we=E2=80=99re sitting t= widdling our thumbs =E2=80=9Cwaiting for Robin to do something=E2=80=9D. Ob= viously, neither is true. And Lojban is still here, in contradiction to wha= t you keep saying, though we disagree on the reasons why it languishes. I w= ish we could have this argument without hurling insults. mu=E2=80=99o mi=E2=80=99e la durka =20 On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > =20 > =20 > 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 >: > > > In old usage, "le" was standardly not used in a baseline-complian= t way; cf how "le nu", "le ka", "le du'u" used to be default in usage. In o= ld and new usage (for new usage, I'm relying on Selpa'i's observation), log= ical scope of syntactic clausemates is generally ambiguous. How many people= are going to want to preserve old ways that aren't baseline-compliant or a= re rampantly logically ambiguous? > > > =20 > > > 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. > > =20 > > There are three forces that potentially shape and define what is to be = deemed correct: > > =20 > > 1. usage > > 2. official codification > > 3. logic (mapping between phonological and logical forms), consistency,= regularity, unambiguity, integrity > > =20 > > & possibly a fourth: > > =20 > > 4. unofficial consensus of opinion (or of influential opinion) > > =20 > > (4) is important for English, maybe not for Lojban. > > =20 > > 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 i= s? > =20 > For me it's 2. codification > 3. logic > 4. consensus > 1. usage > although 4. defines 1. and partially 3. > =20 > > =20 > > At the time I ceased active involvement with Lojban I had come to the v= iew 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 foresee= able outcomes are that the ultraconservative camp withers or that there is = schism. > > =20 > > > More importantly, we have the history of dozens if not hundre= ds of > > > conlangs whose usage has not spread because people wouldn't s= top > > > fiddling with the language design. > > > =20 > > > I think you'd be hard-pressed to identify these dozens if not hun= dreds of conlangs whose usage would have spread if people had stopped fiddl= ing with the language design. > > > =20 > > > 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. > > =20 > > 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") > =20 > > =20 > > 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, s= uch deviation from that ranking quenched their interest? > =20 > There is CLL which is the reference grammar. > When someone says (and proves) that the refgram is no longer valid the la= nguage stops to exist. > This way Lojban loses one of its selling points: the most complete/descri= bed human language ever. > =20 > CLL is the first (and the best imo) book teaching Lojban. > =20 > What others offer instead of CLL? Nothing. Just waiting for Robin to do s= omething instead of them. > =20 > > =20 > > =20 > > > 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. > > =20 > > You seem to have a strange notion of what language destruction is. > =20 > Destruction is exactly when you ignore or invalidate one thing and not pr= oviding alternatives. > Those tinkerers (including xorlofiers back in 2003) threw CLL away and th= us imo destroyed the original plan of a stable language and doomed the lang= uage to the fate of Loglan. Only the lack of the third alternative (a new l= oglang) prevented this community from complete dying. > =20 > =20 > > 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 sense= s. > =20 > =20 > 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. > =20 > > =20 > > =20 > > > For users of handheld devices, Gleki has made an android jbovlast= e app -- it's excellent! > > > =20 > > > Huh? > > =20 > > There is a Google Play app maker called Vorgoron who made the app and g= ave it a description that says "Author - Gleki Arxokuna", which had misled = me into thinking you were Vorgoron. Looking at Vorgoron's other apps, it se= ems likely that Vorgoron is Russian, so likely somebody you know. > =20 > Oh, I see. I just offered him to include a dictionary into their distribu= tions. I don't even remember who is the original author of that dictionary. > =20 > > =20 > > =20 > > --And. > > =20 > > -- =20 > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou= ps "lojban" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send = an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com (mailto:lojban%2Bunsubscrib= e@googlegroups.com). > > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com (mailto:lo= jban@googlegroups.com). > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > =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 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. --541060d2_3b0a3b87_184 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Gleki, you=E2=80=99re not making any sense. In one bre= ath we=E2=80=99re holding a bonfire and torching CLLs, while in the next we= =E2=80=99re sitting twiddling our thumbs =E2=80=9Cwaiting for Robin to do s= omething=E2=80=9D. Obviously, neither is true. And Lojban is still here, in= contradiction to what you keep saying, though we disagree on the reasons w= hy it languishes. I wish we could have this argument without hurling insult= s.

mu=E2=80=99o mi=E2=80=99e la durka
=20

On Wednesday, September 10, 20= 14 at 9:35 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:



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>>:
    In old usage, "le" was standardly not used in a baseline-comp= liant 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 pe= ople 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 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 ho= pe (because it's a position I can respect) it's 1>2>3. What do you th= ink it is?

For me it's 2. codific= ation > 3. logic > 4. consensus > 1. usage
although 4. d= efines 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.

        More importantly, we have the history of dozens= if not hundreds of
        conlangs whose usage has not spread because peo= ple 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 f= iddling 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.
U= sage of conlangs depends on users i.e. conlanger  (although i preferre= d to use "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?
<= div>
There is CLL which is the reference grammar.
W= hen someone says (and proves) that the refgram is no longer valid the langu= age stops to exist.
This way Lojban loses one of its selling poin= ts: 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 Robi= n 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 inv= alidate 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.

 
<= blockquote type=3D"cite">
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 nonsen= sical view, tho I do think it's utterly wrong, but it's hard to have ration= al discussion if we use the same set of terms with such fundamentally diffe= rent and incompatible senses.

The exi= stence 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 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 misled me i= nto 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 diction= ary into their distributions. I don't even remember who is the original aut= hor 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 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 a topic in the Goog= le 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 lojban+unsubscribe@googlegr= oups.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.
=20 =20 =20 =20 =20

=20

--
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.
--541060d2_3b0a3b87_184--